Lords Sitting of 4 April 1946

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway)—Took the Oath.

NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
THE EASTER RECESS.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have no doubt that it will be for the general convenience of your Lordships if I inform you as early as possible of the dates that we propose for the Easter Recess. We hope to meet for a Royal Commission at 12 noon on Thursday, April 18, after which we shall adjourn until Tuesday, April 30, when we shall reassemble for the Second Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, which, if the number of speakers requires it, will extend over the following day, Wednesday, May 1.

LICENSING PLANNING (TEM PORARY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
4.4 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. It is a short Bill, and I believe I may say an entirely uncontroversial Bill. Its object is to provide a little additional elasticity in the arrangements laid down in the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1945 for the constitution of licensing planning areas and licensing planning committees. Your Lordships will remember that last year's Act was founded on the Report of a Committee presided over
582
by Mr. Morris, K.C., now Mr. Justice Morris. The object was to provide means whereby licensing justices and local planning authorities could collaborate in securing the redistribution of licensed premises in connexion with the development of war-damaged areas. Section 1 of the Act empowered the Secretary of State, after consultation with the licensing justices and the local planning authority, to make orders declaring such an area to be a licensing planning area. Section 2 provided that a licensing planning area should then be set up, consisting of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and of representatives in equal numbers of the licensing justices and the local planning authorities. The committee was required, after consultation and negotiation with all the authorities concerned, to prepare a plan and to formulate proposals for the redistribution or surrender of licences in their area, and to submit these proposals for confirmation to the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
This is a very good illustration of preparing plans and finding out when you come to work them where they do not quite fit. We have set up seventeen licensing planning areas, and from most of them no suggestion has come that the machinery of the Act is not working smoothly. But in a few areas difficulties have already arisen which cannot be overcome without amending legislation. The first of these difficulties arises from the fact that under Section 1 of the 1945 Act, the original licensing planning area must consist of one or more contiguous licensing districts. In general, a licensing district consists of one or more contiguous and complete local government areas, and in such circumstances no difficulty has arisen, but there are districts where this is not the case. I am sorry always to draw my illustrations from the County of Kent, but here is an illustration. Take, for instance, the Borough of Dover. Now Dover should plainly be a licensing planning area, but owing to a provision which is tucked away in Section 2, subsection (5) of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, the Dover licensing district includes, the liberties of Dover as one of the Cinque Ports—I believe, it includes, for instance, Broadstairs. This means that as the law stands a Dover licensing planning area must include two areas detached from the borough, and the Dover

583
committee must therefore include representatives of three local planning authorities who are in no way concerned with Dover itself.
Again, it is desired to declare a licensing planning area at Penge. The Penge licensing district includes half the Borough of Beckenham and the other half is in the widespread Bromley licensing district where four other local planning authorities besides the Beckenham Town Council have jurisdiction in one part of the district or another. As the law stands, all these authorities would have to be represented on the proposed committee. For working purposes, of course, it is important to have reasonably compact committees, and remembering that for each representative on a planning committee there must also be a representative of the licensing justices, it is clear that in both these cases the committee will be needlessly and unduly enlarged, unless the requirement that a licensing planning area must consist of whole licensing districts is relaxed. Accordingly, Clause 1 of the Bill provides that where a county district forms part only of a licensing district (as at Dover) or includes parts of more than one licensing district (as at Beckenham) the county district may be taken as a unit in declaring a licensing planning area. The term "county district" of course, includes a borough or an urban or rural district.
Clause 2 deals with a difficulty which has arisen in connexion with "overspill" areas. Section 3 of the 1945 Act empowered the licensing planning committees to apply to the Secretary of State for orders adding to their area licensing districts, to which there has been or is likely to be a substantial transfer of population so that the committee could secure the transfer to the "overspill" area of licences needed there which are no longer needed in the original area. Here again, the section treats the whole licensing district as a unit, and, in the absence of ground to the contrary, this would be the natural course. But a good deal depends on the question whether the "overspill" is widely spread over the district or is mainly concentrated in a small part of it (as, for example, in a new housing estate) and also on the extent and number of the districts involved. No order adding an "overspill" area has yet been made, but the matter has been
584
considered by several committees, and they are dismayed at the extent of the areas which must, as the law stands, be added to their original area, if they are to deal with "overspill" housing estates.
This difficulty has been chiefly felt by the County of London Committee, which already has, as your Lordships will realize, a very heavy and urgent task in London itself, and ought to deal with numerous housing estates outside the county. The committee would be seriously overburdened if it had to deal with the whole of the licensing districts in which those housing estates are contained. But the difficulty is not confined to London. At Sheffield an exceptionally large licensing district would have to be added in order to cover one corporation housing estate, and at Portsmouth two large licensing districts would have to be added in order to cover a single housing estate lying on the border between the two districts. Consequently, Clause 2 of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make orders for the addition to licensing planning areas or "overspill" areas consisting of parts of licensing districts. Incidentally, that will make provision for meeting a position which may arise if two licensing planning areas, for instance, London and West Ham, or Portsmouth and Southampton, "overspill" into the same licensing district and both committees ask for the addition of the district to their area.
Clause 3 contains further provisions for committees and sub-committees. Section 10 of the Act of 1945, which made special provision for the County of London, empowered the Secretary of State to provide by order for sub-committees to consider such matters as might be specified in the order. This was done primarily in order to provide for local sub-committees to include representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils which are not planning authorities and are not, therefore, represented on the main committee. In the provinces, the county district councils are planning authorities and are entitled as such to representation on licensing planning committees. It was not, therefore, thought necessary to make provision for sub-committees outside London. When, however, the order setting up the London sub-committees came to be made it was found advisable to entrust to them certain duties with regard to applications

585
for new licences and temporary removals which might equally well be entrusted to sub-committees elsewhere. The Home Secretary was advised, however, that this could not properly be done without statutory authority for setting up sub-committees outside London. Clause 3 (1) of the Bill therefore provides that orders constituting licensing planning areas outside the County of London or adding "overspill" areas to them may include provision for sub-committees to consider such matters as may be specified in the order. I need hardly say that any such order, of course, would be made only after the fullest consultation with the licensing justices and the planning authorities concerned.
Clause 3 (2) deals with a difficulty which has been foreseen where orders are likely to be made adding a number of "overspill" areas to the original area. Such orders would provide for the addition to the committee of equal numbers of representatives of the licensing justices and planning authorities concerned with the "overspill" area. A joint planning committee is often concerned as well as the district council, in which case the minimum number of additional representatives is four. Where, therefore, a number of areas is added, the committee would become unwieldy if all the members were to concern themselves with all parts of the area, and the original members might actually be outnumbered. Clause 3 (2), therefore, provides that the voting rights of the additional representatives may be limited to matters relating to the "overspill" area with which they are concerned. This limitation is confined to voting in the main committee. If a subcommittee is set up for an "overspill" area, the representatives of that area will have full rights as members of the sub-committee, and will also be able as members of the main committee to vote on all points arising when the report of the sub-committee is considered by the main committee.
Clause 3 (3) provides merely for the variation and revocation of orders under Clause 3 (1) and (2). Clause 3 (4) provides that in London, as elsewhere, the representatives of "overspill" areas may be members of the main committee as well as being members of sub-committees, and it applies to them the power to limit their voting rights in the main committee to matters relating to the "overspill" area
586
with which they are concerned. Clause 3 (5) empowers planning committees to pay secretaries of sub-committees subject to the same conditions as are laid down in the Act of 1945 for the payment of secretaries of main committees. Under Section 2 (8) of the Act of 1945 these expenses will be defrayed by the local planning authorities concerned, which will, of course, be represented on the licensing planning committees.
So your Lordships will see, with that explanation of what I agree is a highly technical matter, that the Bill makes no fundamental changes in the scheme approved by Parliament last year, but that it does do something to meet, in a reasonable way, a number of difficulties which have been revealed by experience already gained in the deliberations of these committees. The Bill contains no proposal which would alter the functions of the licensing planning committees, but it does provide means whereby, in some areas, the burden of work falling on the committees can be lightened materially, the membership of the committees can be kept within reasonable and manageable limits, and, in general, the use of the sub-committees is encouraged. The Bill contains no mandatory provisions on any of these points, but it adds to the alternatives available for adoption in the orders to be made under the Act of 1945, and thus makes it possible for these orders—orders which are only made after full consultation with the licensing justices and planning authorities concerned—to be adjusted more closely to local needs. The task of the licensing planning committees is by no means an easy one, and their work should make a valuable contribution to the planned redevelopment of our damaged areas. It is vitally important that this redevelopment should go forward as a whole with all possible speed, and the present Bill is commended as a small but, I hope, useful contribution towards that end. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.16 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think we should all feel obliged to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for the explanation he has given in regard to this Bill. I, for one, have

587
no objection whatever to taking illustrations from Kent. I happen to be—although my name belies it—a Kentish man by birth. The difference, I believe, between the Lord Chancellor and myself is that he is a Man of Kent by residence. This Bill seeks to make necessary procedure for dealing with the case of a public-house which was damaged by enemy action and other circumstances of that kind more flexible than it was under the measure which was passed through Parliament a year ago. Anything more flexible in that procedure should I think be very welcome. This is one of the few Bills we have had before us which, as I understand it, has originated in this House. It will, naturally, be our duty, therefore, to look through it carefully and diligently in the remaining stages which lie ahead of us before we send it to another place, for I am quite certain that on all sides of this House it would be the wish of your Lordships that we should send forward the measure in as perfect a condition as we can possibly make it. Certainly we propose to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading in this House to-day.
4.18 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has put our point of view so very well that I need hardly dilate upon it. I was much impressed by one part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in which he gave us such a very able and clear explanation of this technical Bill. He said that planning sometimes requires to be revised, or words to that effect. It is common knowledge that, with the best intentions in the world, planners do make mistakes. They start off almost always by thinking that their ideas are right and that those of everybody else are wrong, and then, sometimes, they fall into error.
Another point in the Lord Chancellor's speech that especially interested me was his reference to Kent. Kent, in my opinion, is the finest county in this country. My family come from that county, and when the noble and learned Lord spoke about Dover I thought to myself "that is getting near home," because my father represented Dover from 1868 to 1873. I was, therefore, very glad that the noble and learned Lord brought in Kent as an illustration to explain to us
588
what was going on. As regards "over-spill" areas your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor remarked that a great deal of the "overspill" occurs in the vicinity of London. That is very natural because London is surrounded by very populous neighbours, and, undoubtedly, there is a great deal of difficulty over a lot of these matters. I am very glad to see that this Bill, though not a measure of vital importance, will do much to relieve these committees of a great deal of trouble and to make their work a great deal easier.
The Lord Chancellor referred to the demand of the Metropolitan Borough Councils to have representation. That demand was satisfied. They were asked to give evidence and go before the committees when they had any points to make. On the whole, therefore, I think we ought to be very content with this Bill. It is a Bill designed to remedy certain defects in the machinery which have come to light in the course of experience. Therefore I have no doubt that your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading and send it down to another place without very much more argument.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I think perhaps something ought to be said from these Benches also in support of the Bill. I have been a licensing justice for more years than I care to remember, and even a member of the county licensing committee and I was—I will not say astonished, because I found what I expected when I heard the Lord Chancellor's exposition. He has apparently learnt in a very short time more than I have learnt in all those years. I am sure this Bill is flexible and will help on a difficult, complicated and rather contentious planning system which will benefit both the licensed premises and the consumers.
4.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the way in which this Bill has been received. I do not claim for one moment to know half as much as the noble Viscount who has just spoken on this matter has suggested, but I would like to say this. If any of your Lordships have any difficulties about this Bill I would be grateful if you would come and discuss

589
them with me and I shall be able to understand what they are.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BURMA: GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATIONS.
4.22 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) had given Notice of the following Motions:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 10th December, 1942, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 9th of February, 1943.
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 17th October, 1945, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 26th of February, 1946.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would be to the convenience of the House if in my explanatory remarks I deal with both Resolutions together, although I will move them separately. Their common object is to make further provision for the Government of Burma during the interim period of direct rule that must elapse before the resumption of Parliamentary Government provided for in the Act of 1935. The first Resolution asks approval to the Governor's Proclamation giving him the powers of government in Burma. The validity of this Proclamation would expire automatically on June 9 this year if its continuance, in force were not approved before in Parliament. There is no prospect of Elections in Burma before that date although everything possible is being done to speed up the indispensable preliminaries.
The second Resolution relates to a Proclamation that will expire on April 16
590
unless it is renewed in the meantime by Parliament. This Proclamation enables the Governor to associate a certain number of Burmese public men with himself as members of his Executive and Legislative Council so that even at this early stage in the return to normal conditions in Burma the Burmese are able, in administrative or advisory capacities, to take an active part in the Government of their country. I beg to move the first Resolution standing in my name.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on December 10, 1942, a copy of which was presented to this House on February 9, 1943.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
4.24 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I submit that these very important Orders should not pass your Lordships' House without some interest being shown in them, as I am sure your Lordships would agree. The situation in Burma is known to us all and it appears to be perfectly satisfactory. Nevertheless since the first Orders were introduced into this House a good deal has happened in the neighbouring country of India, and although Burma is entirely independent of India and is, I presume, outside the scope of inquiry of the visiting Cabinet Ministers now in India on their very important duties, I think it will be generally agreed that whatever happens in India as a result of that mission—and certain things are bound to happen—there will be repercussions in Burma and some effect on the Burmese nation. I was very glad to hear from my noble friend, therefore, that the Elections are to be held at the earliest possible date. I do not know that date, and I do not want to press him—the Secretary of State for India is himself in India, and a very good thing too—but it is good to hear that these Elections will be held at the earliest possible moment.
With regard to the second Resolution, perhaps my noble friend can make this a little more clear. Would he say whether the Executive Council of fifteen and the Legislative Council of fifty have actually been established and are functioning? I gather they have. And how many of these are Burmese? I was not here when

591
the other Order was introduced into your Lordships' House and if that information was given then I apologize, but it might perhaps be of general interest if it could be repeated. His Majesty's Government have given the clearest evidence, I suggest, of our desire to agree to Indian self-determination and apparently at last we are being taken seriously by all sections in India, as a result of the Prime Minister's momentous declaration. Obviously our attention with regard to Burma must be on the same level. I think it will be generally agreed that any constitutional changes in Burma should be considerably easier, as fortunately that country is not obsessed by the same communal difficulties as India. I do not think it is right to speak on these Orders which have great importance for the people of Burma, and indeed for your Lordships' House as we are still responsible, without saying again how much the people of this country recognize the very valuable services of patriotic Burmese in resisting the Japs. In the defeat of the largest Japanese army in the field, in the Pacific campaign, and in the liberation of their country, their services were outstanding. We fully appreciate that in this country, and recognize their share in the great victory over the Japanese.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, Lord Strabolgi has asked me two questions on the two Proclamations, both of which I think I can answer in a way to give him at any rate a certain amount of satisfaction. Both the Executive and Legislative Council of the Governor of Burma were established some time ago and have been functioning, with most satisfactory results. The Executive Council was set up on November 3, 1945, and the Legislative Council was established on January 1 this year. I cannot give him the exact number of Burmese on these two bodies but I can assure him that the vast majority of their numbers are Burmese. I will provide him with the detailed information that he wants as soon as I have been able to obtain it from the Department.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Resolution standing in my name.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on October 17, 1945, a copy of which was presented to this House on February 26, 1946.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MENTAL NURSES.
4.30 p.m.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE LORD RUSHCLIFFE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether any decision has yet been taken in regard to the termination of the Mental Nurses (Employment and Offences) Orders, 1941–1944. The noble Lord said: My Lords, you may remember that on February 12 last we discussed on Third Reading the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, and that in the course of the debate which followed, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack told us—he said with great reluctance, which I am sure we fully accepted—that he was unable at that time to give a date when the nurses in mental hospitals would be released from the operation of the Mental Nurses (Employment and Offences) Orders, 1941–44. He also said that he would be only too glad to make a statement in this House when he was in a position to tell us that a decision had been reached. The purpose of my question is to ask him whether such a decision has been reached, and, if so, whether he would be good enough to tell us what it is.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of making a statement on this matter. As announced by the Minister of Labour and National Service on December 13, the general controls on the movement of nurses and midwives will cease to operate on June 20. It has accordingly been decided that the Mental Nurses (Employment and Offences) Orders shall be revoked and cease to operate on that date. It is appreciated that the revocation of these Orders may cause temporary difficulties in retaining staffs in some institutions. Might I for myself add this observation? These nurses have always shown that they prefer the interests and convenience of their patients to their own

593
interests, and I believe that they will not fail us at this time. If the Orders were not revoked, the Mental Nursing Service would, after June 20, be the only branch of nursing subject to restrictions of this kind. That would be a grave handicap to future recruitment to the Service, and, after the fullest consideration, we have come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lies in withdrawing the Orders on June 20. I understand that the Secretary of State has taken a similar decision regarding the revocation of the Orders in Scotland.
4.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think the House will be very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for being able, so so soon after our debate, not only to report to us, but to report in such a satisfactory way. We must all be extremely glad that it has been found possible to bring these Orders to an end. No tribute can be too high to pay to the people who have given their whole life and service to this extremely onerous and very often disagreeable work. All your Lordships felt, while recognizing that to the full, indeed because they recognized it so fully, that it would be a grave hardship if they were to be compulsorily retained at this
594
work, which many of them (some of them, certainly) had undertaken under the emergency of war. I am bound to say that if they had to continue at it, it would have been very unfortunate. It was, however, a very difficult decision to take, because there was the possibility of a gap. On the other hand, I am sure that this is a case where justice and fairness to those who are in the Service will have its own due reward, as the Lord Chancellor has said, in assisting recruitment in future. I think this is an instance where we can all accept congratulations. We congratulate the Lord Chancellor. We thank him for the personal trouble he has taken, which I know is considerable, over this matter. I am sure all your Lordships will be glad that we went into it on a previous occasion so fully, and that the result of our combined efforts is so satisfactory.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before five o'clock.