Lords Sitting of 14 February 1946

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Middleton—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion for the Third Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before we start upon the business standing on the Order Paper to-day, it may perhaps be for the general convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships that our first sitting for public business next week will be on Monday, 18th February, at 4 o'clock, and that this sitting will be in addition to our normal meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The principal business on Monday next will be the Notices in the names of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on the steps proposed to be taken to meet the increased burden of work and responsibility imposed upon the Civil Service by current and immediately prospective legislation, and on the recent Report of the Committee on Legal Aid and Legal Advice for Poor Persons, respectively. Let me repeat that the hour of meeting will be 4 o'clock, at the close of the Judicial Sitting that afternoon.

INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.5 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, with respect to the qualifications of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, to extend temporarily the powers of the Indian Legislature to make laws, to amend subsection (4) of Section 102 of the said Act as to the effect of laws passed by virtue of a Proclamation of Emergency, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
There are two matters principally dealt with in this Bill; the reason for introducing it to your Lordships arises from two separate causes. Your Lordships will remember that in September last an announcement was made by the Viceroy with regard to certain intentions of His Majesty's Government after the holding of the provincial elections. One of those related to the reformation of his own Executive Council; he hoped to base that Council upon the political Parties in India and to be in accordance with the leaders of Indian opinion. Clause 1 of this Bill is designed to meet a situation with regard to that which may arise. Under the present law, which is contained in Section 36 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1919, as it is continued by Schedule 9 of the Government of India Act, 1935, there is a provision requiring that three members of the Governor-General's Executive Council shall be persons who have been ten years in the service of the Crown in India, and that one member thereof shall be a barrister, an advocate or a pleader.
This existing state of the law imposes a limitation on the Viceroy which it may be desirable—I emphasize the word "may"—to be without in the event of the Government of the Viceroy altering the character of the Executive Council. The purpose of Clause 1 of this Bill is to remove that limitation. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is only permissive. It does not say that the Viceroy shall in fact have an Executive Council which does not fulfil those requirements, it only removes from him the limitation which compels him to have a Council with those limitations. In view of the importance of the discussions which are to be held in India at a

557
very early date, I recommend this clause to your Lordships in order to get out of the way an obstacle which might result in an unsatisfactory conclusion to those discussions. So much for Clause 1, which really stands in a category of its own.
I now come to the other clause in the Bill, which arises out of a different set of circumstances. I think it is possibly known to your Lordships that it is the intention of the Governor-General to revoke the Proclamation of the Emergency, which he issued in 1939, on April 1 next. As a result, the Government of India will lose from that date their executive powers in the provincial field. Central legislation in the provincial field will lapse six months later, that is, on October 1, 1946. This involves certain consequences which seem to the Governor-General undesirable unless amended, as we propose, according to the clauses of this Bill. Much the most important question is that of food, but food does not stand alone. There are also other matters of trade set out in Clause 2 which the Viceroy would, unless the present Bill be enacted, lose the power to co-ordinate. He would be unable to co-ordinate the distribution of commodities in short supply on an All-India basis. In view of the facts which have just come to light about the grave shortage of food in certain parts of India, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the necessity to continue the central power to make this distribution on an All-India basis.
Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Viceroy to do this for the period which is set out in Clause 4—to which I propose to make subsequent reference. Clause 3 deals with the matter of requisitioned land. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that not very long ago—I think it was during the life of the Coalition Government, and, therefore, it was done with the consent of all Parties—we, in this country, decided that it was necessary to make provision for the retention of land which had been requisitioned and not to restore it immediately to the owner directly the powers under the Emergency ceased, and that we did in an Act of Parliament.
Precisely the same set of circumstances arises in India. There is land which has been requisitioned and which the Government in India will have either to acquire or to return to its original owners, but,
558
after consideration of the matter, it seems to the Government of India that the period that would be allowed, if no amending legislation were passed, would be too short to enable satisfactory arrangements to be made. Therefore, in Clause 3 of the Bill, it is proposed to retain under requisition lands and buildings until the Government of India have had adequate time to decide the ultimate fate of those lands and buildings and to complete the necessary negotiations. I would emphasize to your Lordships that this Clause 3 of this Bill does not give the Government of India power to requisition or acquire any land or buildings which are not already under requisition. It only deals with land or buildings which are at present under requisition, and enables the Government to retain them under requisition until it seems appropriate to acquire them or hand them back, under terms, to the owners.
Clause 4 deals with the period of time during which these powers are given to the Government of India. In the first place they run for one year only beginning with the date on which the Proclamation of the Emergency in force at the passing of this Act ceases to operate. But the Governor-General, by public notification, can extend the period up to two years beginning with that date. That is an extension of a further year, and, provided that a Resolution approving the extension be carried in both Houses of Parliament, the period can be extended for a further period up to, finally, five years from the date on which the Proclamation ceases to operate.
And now just a few words about a rather complicated clause—Clause 5. This clause has been included in order to remove a doubt arising under Section 102 (4) of the Government of India Act, 1935. When, during the Emergency, central legislation has been enacted, part of it has sometimes been in exercise of powers which the centre permanently possessed, part of it sometimes in exercise of the temporary powers in the provincial field. When these temporary powers lapse, it might be a matter of doubt whether the legislation which is imposed lapses so far as both parts of those provisions are concerned, and the object of Clause 5 is to say that any legislation passed shall not lapse so far as it deals with powers which could always be carried out by the Government of India, and

559
that it shall only lapse in regard to powers which are only conferred upon it during the Emergency.
I think that those are the principal points of the Bill as it appears before you. But I think that your Lordships would wish me to add one word. Since the Bill was drafted, it has been discovered that Clause 3, in the precise form in which it appears in the printed Bill, does not entirely cover the points with which it was intended to deal, and I shall have to ask your Lordships when the Bill reaches the Committee stage to make certain changes in the drafting of Clause 3. But nothing in those Amendments will affect the principles which I have described to your Lordships in my efforts to explain that third clause of the Bill. That is a brief and, I hope, fair description of the powers which it is sought to take under this Bill, and I move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining the meaning and effect of the clauses of this Bill. They are, in some respects, inevitably a little complicated. He pointed out at the beginning—and it was important to observe it—that really the Bill deals with two distinct classes of subject. Clause 1 stands by itself, and involves a constitutional change of some consequence. The other clauses—Clauses 2, 3 and the following clauses—are really temporary provisions and adjustments which it is felt necessary to make in view of the situation now existing and consequent upon the time of the war.
Perhaps I might make an observation on my own account about the second of those two groups. The thing which I think your Lordships would wish to notice is that they are governed by Clause 4 which shows that the change they make is intended to be temporary. But the change so made will last, in the first instance, for two years from the date indicated—which I gather is not very far off—and even if there be a desire to continue this temporary situation for a little longer there is a positive limit. It is laid down that the matter shall not continue for more than five years from the date
560
on which the Proclamation of Emergency ceases to operate. These provisions are, in their nature, temporary.
If I may presume to say so—it is within the knowledge of those who know this very complicated subject—they seem to me to be thoroughly justified. The one which is of considerable general interest to all those in this country who follow this complicated Indian problem as closely as they can, is the one which confers upon the Central Legislature certain powers which in normal times would belong, I think, only to the Provincial Legislatures. The necessity for them in recent times has been quite evident. If the food situation in India which has been so critical was to be dealt with effectively, it was, as I understand it, felt by the authorities—and I think we should be all disposed to agree—that it must be within central hands.
Otherwise a particular Province would have the exclusive right of dealing with the food situation within its own boundaries, and distances are so great and indeed the interests of different Provinces are so varied, that unless the Central Legislature and Central Government have also got the power of dealing with foodstuffs (which rather oddly are put in the middle of the list of things), unquestionably the terribly difficult task which has assailed the Indian authorities in the matter of the food crisis could not have been with equal efficiency surmounted. I think I am right in saying that this does not take away any power; it merely says that the Central Legislature also has the power. It will follow that if both the Central and Provincial Legislatures passed enactments about exactly the same matter and if they happened to be in any sort of conflict the Central Legislature would prevail. I think the Secretary of State said that the provision was to enable the Viceroy to make these arrangements. That may, in substance, be right but the actual provision is an extension of the Legislative powers and I presume the legislature will pass, perhaps at the Viceroy's suggestion, some law which will confer on the Viceroy those powers which are needed. All that seems to me to be completely justified and I do not imagine that your Lordship in any part of the House will have any adverse comment to make.
The same thing is true of the clauses which follow. Clause 5, the little clause which looks so very difficult, becomes

561
quite simple if one takes the trouble to look at Section 102 of the Government of India Act. When one looks at it one sees that whether deliberately or perhaps by the chance of drafting, whereas subsection (2) of Section 102 contains words to the effect that the Central Law shall prevail over the Provincial Law and the Provincial Law shall "to the extent of the repugnancy" be void, the subsection immediately following it does not contain any words to that effect. On that, all that Clause 5 does here is to put those words in, very sensibly so.
I return to the first clause, which I think is far the most important part of this Bill, if we regard it as a constitutional or political provision, and it is a provision of very considerable importance indeed. Up to the present, and certainly going back to the Montagu Reforms if not before, there has been as part of the Constitution of British India the provision that the Governor-General's Council, whatever its numbers and however else composed, must contain three members at least who have the qualification of having served for at least ten years in the service of the Crown in India. That, of course, does not mean Englishmen, Scotsmen or Irishmen as against Indians. It has nothing to do with the subject of Indianisation. The test is not that but: whether these individuals have served for ten years in the service of the Crown in India or as Indian civil servants. That Service used in the past to be a very great Service, and includes some most accomplished Indians as well as people who come from this country. But the fact was that certain members of the Governor-General's Council—the Minister of Finance (and the Finance of India is no small matter) was one, the Home Member was another, were necessarily people who had been trained in the administrative service of India under the Crown.
That is the provision that this first clause seeks now to remove leaving it, as the Secretary of State said, not as a matter of course but of discretion that individuals might be appointed who had not had that experience. I know that is one of the changes, one of the greater facilities which the Viceroy has had in mind, and indeed that idea has been one which has been in the minds of many of us. The difference is, I think, this—I mention it so that your Lordships may
562
have it in mind—that as the proposal had been regarded in the recent past, from the time when I was in the Government and took a special interest in these things, as for instance when Sir Stafford Cripps went out with his Mission, the idea was to appeal to the great communities in India to come together to devise for themselves and for India a new and advanced system of Government, with the assurance that we would ourselves in the British Parliament gladly take it and put it into law. I think the idea was that this sort of change, abolishing the necessity of having anyone in the Executive who was trained in the Service of the Crown, should come about at the same time as the working out of the new Constitution. I must confess that for myself—I speak only for myself in this matter although I am most deeply interested in the progress of the Indian Constitution—although some may question whether we have been wise in the past in making what may be regarded as quite minor concessions piece-meal, I think there was a good deal to be said for the view that it would be more effective and would add to the Viceroy's authority, if when a change came a number of things went with it at the same time. I doubt if these piecemeal concessions have had all the recognition they deserve. All the same, the Secretary of State is no doubt himself satisfied. He is responsible in these matters to the House and not the Viceroy at all. The Viceroy has not to come here to tell us that this or that should be done. His Majesty's Government are responsible. I think, if that is so, your Lordships will probably take the view that this is a clause which so submitted ought to be accepted and passed by Parliament.
I notice that the Secretary of State more than once in his speech spoke as if the Viceroy made these appointments. I would most respectfully venture to offer a correction. Those appointments are not made by the Viceroy at all. Members of the Governor-General's Executive Council are appointed by His Majesty, by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. While, of course, every appointment and every change of appointment in the Governor General's Council is made as a result of consultation between the Governor General and the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Cabinet, as things are, it is not a correct constitutional statement

563
to say that it is the Viceroy who makes these appointments. Things would change very much if the progress in constitutional reform which so many of us would like to see can be brought about. What the position of the Viceroy would be in such a situation is indeed one of the great questions involved, but I hope it may fall into place with some new and agreed constitution, for which we most fervently pray.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for making these remarks, which have been made in the most sympathetic spirit. Nobody can have spent such a long time as I have in trying to understand the Indian situation and endeavouring to contribute what little I could to it without being profoundly interested in anything which affects the future of that great country.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I do not propose to make any observations with regard to the latter clauses of the Bill, but I would like to say a few words in support of the first clause, to which the noble and learned Viscount, who has just spoken, has directed his principal observations.
As to the general policy to be pursued in India, in this country all Parties and both Houses of Parliament are agreed. Ever since the Cripps Mission to India, and the offer that was then made, this country has definitely and irrevocably stated that it favours the fullest measure of Indian self-government, and the only delay that has been caused has been due to the fact that it was hoped the principal forces in Indian politics might agree on some form of Constitution to replace the present Constitution, or at least agree upon some Constitution-making authority which could draft such a Constitution. Meanwhile there is a state of transition or one might say of suspense.
When these matters have been discussed in your Lordships' House on two or three occasions, I have ventured to urge that the status of the Viceroy should be altered, and, instead of being both Viceroy and Prime Minister, he should be constituted rather as a representative of the Sovereign, as performing the functions of a constitutional Sovereign, and that he should be assisted by a Prime Minister, who should himself
564
be an Indian, together with an All-Indian Cabinet. Whether that is practicable or not I do not know, but there certainly ought to be no statutory barrier to his Cabinet—the Governor-General's Council—being wholly Indianized. There is such a barrier in practice now in that there exists a statutory right for the Indian Civil Service to hold two posts in the Council together with a third post which is to be given to a person with certain legal qualifications. It is quite true these members of the Indian Civil Service need not necessarily be of British birth. They may themselves be Indians.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that this provision, which has been inherited from a previous era of Indian politics, does hamper the full freedom of the Viceroy in constituting a Cabinet which shall be fully representative of India and of the political forces of that country. Consequently, it is highly desirable that this provision should be removed. I confess I do not share the view which has been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. He is of the opinion that this change would better be held over until there is a general settlement, and should form one item in that settlement. I am afraid that would be regarded by the Indian politicians as merely continuing an existing provision of the law which is generally agreed not to be a desirable one for the sake of having a bargaining point when conferences are going on as to the establishment of a new Indian Constitution. I do not think myself that that is desirable. We had much better approach the matter frankly and without arrière pensée and say that this particular provision, which comes from a comparatively remote time in Indian history, should now be repealed, and, for my own part, thinking that this change is right in itself, I am also of the opinion that the sooner it is done the better. Accordingly, I cordially support the first clause of the Bill.
4.40 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I only want to add two or three words to what has fallen from the lips of my noble and learned friend, Viscount Simon, with regard to this Bill. We welcome and support this Bill. With regard to Clause 1, however, I am bound to say personally I share some of his doubts upon the

565
advisability of making these piecemeal changes in very vital points of the constitution of the Government of India, and, while I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Viscount Samuel, has said, it does seem to me difficult to speak in terms of an Indian Prime Minister when you are dealing with an Executive Council which is not responsible to a Legislature, but responsible, as the Constitution at present stands, solely to the Viceroy, and it seems to me that the whole idea of the appointment of an Indian Prime Minister—which we hope will be realised in the near future—means going much further in the development of Parliamentary Government than has yet proved possible owing to the division of opinion between the two great religions. We hope to see that division healed at the earliest possible date, but until that time comes, and until the Council or the Cabinet is responsible to the Legislature, it does not seem to me to be desirable to make important changes in the Constitution. I have no doubt the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, has made this change in close consultation with the Viceroy.
We all know the Viceroy has to face a most difficult and delicate task in the next few months, and for my part I grudge him no extension of his power, and no limitation of his discretion, which he himself thinks will help him in the terribly trying months which no doubt lie ahead. So much with regard to Clause 1. With regard to the rest of the Bill, I am sure that in every quarter of the House the very deepest distress is felt at the main reason which has made this prolongation of central legislative powers necessary. That is the failure of the northeastern monsoon and the famine with which India is threatened. All we can do as to that—for there is a world shortage, as we know—is to wish all the servants of the King, the Viceroy, the Ministers, the Governors and the public servants of all kinds, God-speed in the task of dealing with this scourge. It is terrible that once again such a spectre should be stalking across the Indian scene, when so many other difficulties and troubles are about. Let us give our unreserved support to the Viceroy in anything he believes to be necessary in order to deal with that spectre.
There is only one question I wish to ask about the later clauses of the Bill.
566
Clause 6, to which my noble friend the Secretary of State for India did not refer, speaks about the functions which the Governor-General under this Act is required to exercise at his own discretion. I shall be glad to be informed whether under this Bill we are extending in any way the powers which the Governor-General has to exercise at his own personal discretion. I do not question that this clause refers to anything except the public notification required for the extension period under Clause 4. But the phraseology of Clause 6 seems to be a little vague, and I shall be very grateful it the Secretary of State can explain the point as to whether that gives the Governor-General discretionary powers beyond what is required under Clause 4.
4.45 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give a categoric answer to the noble Lord on the spur of the moment, but I will endeavour to get such answer before I sit down. I should like to thank the two noble Viscounts and the noble Lord who has just sat down for their very sympathetic reception of this Bill, and, in particular, the noble Lord for his feeling remarks with regard to the grave disasters which make any of us who have any special relationship with India very sad at the present time. I want, more particularly, to refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said with regard to what I said on Clause 2. Naturally, your Lordships will appreciate that the noble Viscount always speaks with great accuracy, and if I made the mistake which he attributed to me—and very likely I did—in using the word "Viceroy" instead of "Legislature" in regard to Clause 2, I accept his correction with appreciation. Perhaps I had better read out the opening words of Clause 2. They are:
"Notwithstanding anything in the Government of India Act, the Indian Legislature shall, during the period mentioned in Section 4 of this Act, have powers to make laws …"
etc.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I imagine they authorize the Viceroy.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Therefore, if I fell into error over that, I apologize to the House. It was my desire not to read a brief, but to explain the thing in a straightforward fashion. Technically, also, the noble and learned

567
Viscount is quite right in what he said at the end, although, in practice, the Executive Council is appointed by the Viceroy. With regard to Clause 6, the answer to the noble Lord is that it refers to the notification mentioned in Clause 4 and the previous sanction mentioned in Clause 2 (3). I think that is the real purpose of Clause 6, and I trust that that explanation makes the matter clear. If the noble Lord wishes to raise the matter again in Committee I will endeavour to give him a more intelligible reply.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a according to Order and passed.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Inventions and designs made in Germany or Japan.
4.—(1) An application for a patent or for the registration of a design may be refused by the Comptroller at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that the invention or design was, during the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and ending with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five, invented or designed in Germany or Japan or invented or designed by a German national in any territory which was then enemy territory.
(2) The ground mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be an additional ground for opposing under section eleven of the principal Act an application for a patent, or for revoking a patent under section twenty-five or section twenty-six of the principal Act or for cancelling the registration of a design under section fifty-eight of the principal Act or (by way of rectification of the register) under section seventy-two of the principal Act, and shall also, on infringement proceedings, be an additional ground of defence or for a counterclaim for the revocation of a patent or the cancellation of the registration of a design.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in any case where—

(a) the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of a registered design, as the case may be, proves that the invention or design was invented or designed in Germany before the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, or was invented or designed in Japan before the seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and has at no time since the said third day of September or, as the case may be, the said seventh day of December, been beneficially owned in whole or in part by a German or Japanese national or a German or Japanese company; or

(b) the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of the design, as the case may be, proves that, before the invention or design was invented or designed in Germany or Japan or, as the case may be, was invented or designed by a German national in enemy territory, it was independently invented or designed outside Germany and Japan by a person, other than a German or Japanese national, through whom the applicant, patentee or proprietor claims.

(4) An appeal shall lie from any decision of the Comptroller under this section to the Appeal Tribunal, and the provisions of the principal Act relating to appeals to the Appeal Tribunal shall apply to appeals under this section.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert
"(1) An applicant for a patent or for the registration of a design may be refused by the Comptroller at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that before the date of the application the applicant had access to information that the invention was, during the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and ending with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five, in use or known in Germany or Japan or invented or designed in Germany or Japan or invented or designed by a German or Japanese national in any territory, which was then enemy territory."
The noble Viscount said: The Amendment standing in my name and the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, are both intended, I think, to deal with the same matter. On the Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that, under the Bill as drafted, a British subject who had made an independent invention during the war and who might have applied already for a patent, the grant of his patent having been postponed for reasons of secrecy, would be—surely, this is an error in drafting—precluded from obtaining a patent in this country if it subsequently transpired that during the war a German or a Japanese (because the provisions

569
apply equally to Japan) had made a similar invention, although the British inventor did not and could not possibly have known anything about the discovery.
That, I am sure, is a fault we should all wish to remedy. The purpose of my Amendment is really to put—as I understand the law—the rights of an applicant for a patent exactly where they would be under the patent law of this country as it stands. If he knew about the German invention, or indeed, if he had means of knowing by publication in some scientific journal or otherwise, then, under the ordinary law, an applicant for a patent would not be entitled to get a patent in this country because he could, should or might have known about it. But what we want to safeguard is the position of a man who did not know and really could not have known what was happening in Germany and who made an independent invention on his own. That is what my Amendment seeks to do, and the noble Lord's Amendment also. On looking more closely at my own Amendment in conjunction with his, I am not sure whether if my Amendment were accepted, we should not have to put further consequential Amendments in the clause later on.
I should like two assurances from the noble Lord, if it is convenient to the Lord Chairman to discuss the two Amendments together. The first is that if we accept his Amendment, the British applicant will be protected, quite irrespective of the date when the invention was made in Germany. If he could not know about it, it does not make the least difference whether the German made his invention before or after the British subject made his invention. I want to be quite clear about that. The British subject ought to be protected, whatever time he made his invention. The second point is concerned with proof. I think under my Amendment the onus of proof would be upon the Comptroller and not upon the applicant: that is to say, it would be up to the Comptroller to show that a man had knowledge or could have had knowledge. I think that might be a variant of the 'ordinary law and I do not press it provided this is understood: that very strict proof by the applicant will not be required.
Quite obviously, if somebody was guilty of misrepresentation, then nobody
570
would wish to defend him at all on the matter of the patent, and the Comptroller ought out of hand to turn him down or to invite the Court so to do. I take it, however, if the noble Lord's form of Amendment is taken, that if the applicant produced the particulars about his patent and filed an affidavit that it was original and that he had no knowledge of it from any corrupt enemy source, then that would be accepted, and he would not be put to any special proof to show that he did not or could not have known what was happening in Germany. With those remarks I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Leave out sub-section (1) and insert the proposed new subsection.—[Viscount Swinton.]
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add a word or two on this clause, which really does raise some very curious and, as I think, rather difficult points? If I may express the opinion, my noble friend Viscount Swinton has good ground for his proposed Amendment, and for this amongst other reasons: that unless some such Amendment is put in—and now I am referring rather to the second Amendment under his name—an invention or a design made, we will say, by a British prisoner of war in Germany, would be open to objection. I dare say there are not many such inventions, but I know that during the long years that some unfortunate people were imprisoned in Germany they had lots of time to make designs, if they were people with arty skill in designs. It is not, of course, intended by Clause 4 of the Bill to prevent such a person getting protection for his design in this country.
There are, however, inure points than that, which I invite the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill to consider. Take one, the simplest of all: the one that rests on the words "within enemy territory," which my noble friend Viscount Swinton has adopted in his Amendment. I do not know whether those words have ever been used before in any Act of Parliament, but I cannot remember their being in use. I know in popular phraseology it is intended to include, and perhaps intended only to include, territories which were in enemy occupation. I am not quite certain whether the words will not lead to litigation, to find out precisely if that is all they mean or whether there should

571
be some other qualification. Take the case of France, for instance.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount, with great deference, to refer him to the clause concerning definitions—Clause 7—where a definition is provided of "enemy territory"? I do not know whether it satisfies him, but there is a definition there. I thought that would help the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am afraid I had not noticed that point, and I must apologize to the House if I have raised a subject which is not necessary. Which is the clause?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is at the top of page 6.
LORD PAKENHAM: The definition of "enemy territory" is given there. There are three kinds.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I must apologize; I had not noticed it. Then I need not trouble further with that. The other point I wanted to refer to was this. The second Amendment refers to a case where a patentee, or the proprietor of a design, or the applicant, proves that the invention or design was invented or designed by him while he was a prisoner of war. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend Viscount Swinton has gone quite so far as he wished to go.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not really dealing with that. I had not come to that Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Are you not dealing with that too?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I was dealing with the first Amendment in my name and the Amendment in the name of Lord Pakenham, which did not touch the prisoner of war point but was intended to protect the man who was in this country and made an invention in this country although a German may have made a similar invention in Germany. I am going to move my other Amendment later.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: When you said you were referring to the second Amendment, I was not sure that it was not yours with which you were dealing.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, Lord Pakenham's. I am sorry.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: In that case I will not say anything more on that at the moment. I will only add this. I am not quite sure that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has explained to us why the last words in Clause 4 (1) are confined to German nationals. The inventions or designs that we are dealing with here are inventions and designs in Germany or Japan in the first instance, and then it goes on to relate to inventions or designs by "a German national in any territory which was then enemy territory." I humbly apologize for what I said about enemy territory. But why only a German national? Why does it not include the Japanese? I am not sure that it should not include an Italian, because the territories which were then enemy territories will include Italy, Japan, and, I presume, France at one period, and a number of other countries in Europe, because there were thirteen of them which were in the hands of the Axis powers, particularly in the hands of the Germans. I assume, therefore, that they are enemy territories within the meaning of Section 15 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939.
At any rate, that is my very clear recollection, and, if so, ought not the end of the clause which we are now discussing in Committee to be somewhat extended, so that it will cover these other cases? It would be curious if inventions or designs by German nationals were excluded but those by Japanese, Italians and others were not. However, I have not got an Amendment down on the paper with regard to this matter. All I can ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is to consider this point and see whether it does not need Be dealt with. In the meantime, I support my noble friend Viscount Swinton in his first Amendment.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I first of all reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham? Certainly the point he has just raised will be considered. I know there was some question of including a reference to Japanese inventions in enemy territory outside Japan, but it was thought hardly worth placing in the Bill. The other issues he raises under that same heading are rather wider, but since he has raised them, I will convey them to the authorities to see whether there is any disposition to widen the scope of the Bill. I should imagine not, in view of the fact that this Bill is intended to deal with German and Japanese inventions.

573
Coming to the first Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I certainly feel it would be only proper to acknowledge with gratitude the part he has played in bringing this important question to light. Of course he is an old President of the Board of Trade, so he understands things from the inside. I have heard of poachers turning game-keepers, but here we have got a game-keeper turning poacher, and a very formidable phenomenon it is. We are all agreed in the broad objective that we are seeking under Clause 4; we are trying to make sure that German and Japanese inventions made during the war shall not be made the subject of patents in this country. We are, to put it in another way, trying to make freely available to British industry the fruits of German and Japanese war-. time inventions. That is the very broad object, but there is a second object which is, I think, very much clearer in our minds after the points made on the subject the other day by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The object which he is seeking to realize by his Amendment and the object which we are seeking to realize by our Amendment—he will forgive me if I say that we prefer ours—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You have got a skilled draftsman and I have only got myself.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount has had a lot of experience in this field. We are trying to secure the same object, and I can give him straight away those broad assurances that he asked for in his speech. Although I do not know that I can promise that an affidavit will be accepted in all cases as sufficient proof, I am told it will be accepted in the case of any reputable citizen. If there is any reason to doubt the word of a citizen, further evidence might be required, hut, broadly speaking, in the case of any reputable citizen an affidavit will be sufficient. So we can give him those two assurances without any difficulty, and indeed
LORD SWINTON: At any date?
LORD PAKENHAM: The application has got to be made before January r, 1946. As far as German and British inventions are concerned, it does not matter which was made first during the war period. The British inventor is protected. Now that we are clear about our
574
main objective, and what I might call our subsidiary objective, I think it only remains, on the subject of these two alternative Amendments, to deal with the question of proof. As the noble Viscount has said, it might be rather difficult under his Amendment. In fact, I am told it would be extremely difficult, and might well be impossible, for the Comptroller to prove that the British invention was derived from the German invention. I am sure the noble Viscount will take it from us that it will be much more convenient administratively, and will work very much better if the onus is put on the applicant, providing always that in all normal cases an affidavit will be sufficient to establish proof to the satisfaction of the Comptroller. I do not think at this stage I need say any more, except again to cypress thanks to the noble Viscount for raising the matter and to say I hope very much he will accept our Amendment as giving effect, perhaps more effectively and efficiently, to the purposes we both have in mind.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and to the Government. I am perfectly prepared to accept their Amendment. I know that when the Government get down to a thing they are much more likely to draft it in the right way. I imagine that the date January r, 1946, is right. I am not quite sure that I am in order in raising it on this. Obviously, we do not want to give any chance to people after the German knowledge has once become available to the world, because they aright pick it up and bring it back. On the other hand, there might be somebody who had made a perfectly genuine invention which he could show was invented before V Day, but who, for some reason or other—he might have been ill or he might have been out of the country—had not made his application formally before this date. That man ought not to be prejudiced.
I quite see that you have got to have some broad date laid down because otherwise you might have anyone picking up inventions and bringing them along. I do not ask the noble Lord to deal with this now, because I ought to have raised it in the form of an Amendment, but I would be grateful if he and the Board of Trade would look at this between now and the next stage, and see whether it would

575
not be fair to all parties to put in some proviso to the effect that if a man was out of time through no fault of his own, and if he established with very definite evidence that he had not profited by and knew nothing about, and really could know nothing about, a German or Japanese invention, and if he absolutely established that he had made his inventions before V Day, there ought to be locus penitentiae for him.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I will certainly look into that. It is a point I have heard discussed, but no doubt he will give us time to have a further look at it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning of paragraph (b), to insert
"the application for the patent or for the registration of the design was made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six, and".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, at beginning insert ("the application for -the patent or for the registration of the design was made before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-six, and").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out
"before the invention or design was invented or designed in Germany or Japan or, as the case may be, was invented or designed by a German national in enemy territory."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. It is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out from ("that") to ("it") in line 28.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert
"or (c) the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of a design, as the case may be, proves that the invention or design was invented or designed by him while he was a prisoner of war in Germany, Japan, or any territory which was then enemy territory."
576
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment to which the noble and learned Viscount below the gangway was good enough to give his support when he spoke. I do not suppose there will be many cases of this kind, but if there is one man who, above all others, we should want to protect if he had a real case, it would be the man who was a prisoner of war. Supposing a prisoner of war did invent a patentable article or a design while he was in a prison camp in Germany or occupied territory, he would, under the Bill as drafted, be precluded from applying for or getting his patent because the invention would have been made in enemy territory—where he had no desire to be, and where he certainly had no access to German secret processes. I know that in all probability certain further work would have to be done when he got back; he probably would have to get his experiments done, and so on, and he might have done that. There is another possibility which really reinforces the point the noble Lord said he would look at about the possibility of locus penetentiae. One thing which kept up the morale of our prisoners more than anything else was the amazing work in which they kept themselves occupied. They did, for all I know, design work. It might very well be that a prisoner of war had got a design practically all complete in his hands when his imprisonment ended and that he put the finishing touches to it after his release. Such a man is obviously the sort of man we would all want to protect and it is in his interests that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, at end, to insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My noble friend has put his case about prisoners of war so clearly that I really do not think I need add anything to it. I would only say that of course you can work out an invention without any experiments if you really know your job. A skilled designer could develop an invention for, say, a new form of motor car engine entirely on paper, and make all the necessary drawings so that his invention might be complete at the end of the four or five years that he was a prisoner of war. So this clause really should cover invention and designs. As my noble friend has said, it is easier to do it in relation to designs than it is in relation to patent inventions. But I want to go a little bit

577
further—that is unless I have come upon another mare's nest. I hope I have not. It would certainly be something new for me to discover two in the course of one afternoon.
What I desire to point out is that the same thing could happen not only with regard to inventions or designs by prisoners of war but also with regard to inventions and designs by internees who are British subjects. I know that there were large numbers of internees in some of these countries, and an internee inventor should not be exposed to this risk to which my noble friend Viscount Swinton has drawn attention. If the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill accepts this Amendment, I would venture to suggest that he should also seek to make arrangements to cover the case of internees. There is one thing more which I would like to add although it is not perhaps quite so likely to be useful. This relates to prisoners of war who managed to escape. I have known of cases of gallant soldiers who have been for months at large in enemy occupied territory, supported by inhabitants of that territory who were willing to help them. They, I think, could not be regarded as being prisoners of war any longer in those circumstances. I think that a person is only a prisoner of war from the point of view of legal phraseology while he is with in the prison walls. When he ceases to be within those walls lie automatically ceases to be within the category of a prisoner of war. Perhaps, therefore, Lord Pakenham would take the trouble to see in making a perfect Amendment so as to cover these people who ought not to be deprived of any of their rights that it covers people whom he really does not intend to affect adversely by the substantive provisions of Clause 4.
LORD PAKENHAM: The principle stated by my noble friend Viscount Swinton and somewhat expanded by Viscount Maugham is not unacceptable to us. I would say, however, that cases such as those which they have described are regarded as very improbable indeed. After all, if a man has invented something as a prisoner of war in Germany and he comes back here and applies for a patent, the Comptroller is not going to try to stop him getting one, and there is only just a possibility that a friend might intervene and say, "Oh, but that
578
was published during the war." If, in fact, it was conceived in the man's head during that period he was not under any statutory obligation to disclose the fact immediately he came back here. So such cases are considered to be very unlikely. But, as I say, we admit the principle, and like both the noble Viscounts who have spoken on this Amendment we are most anxious not only to do no injustice but also to be quite clear before the world as doing no injustice to prisoners of war. Viscount Maugham has mentioned one or two other possible cases. Without exhausting my own intellectual resources I think that I could mention several more myself, but I will not inflict them upon the Committee this afternoon. I can assure the Committee that we do accept the principle while not necessarily accepting the precise words. With the permission of the House we will bring forward something to meet this at the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged, for I think that something ought certainly to be put into the Bill in this connexion. Lord Pakenham has said that the Comptroller's attitude would naturally be friendly towards a man putting forward an invention or design in circumstances such as have been outlined. But may I suggest that we have got to be very careful about this. In this connexion, the Comptroller does not act as an administrative officer but as a judicial officer. When an applicant for a patent goes before him he has got to exercise the wide powers which are given to him in a strictly judicial capacity. It may be satisfactory as a matter of administration to say: "This is the way I am going to administer it," but the noble Lord cannot give any undertaking on the Comptroller's behalf as to the manner in which he will act in his judicial capacity. The Comptroller is bound to interpret the law with complete accuracy, so far as he can, and the applicant is bound to put all his cards on the table.
LORD PAKENHAM: No, I understand not. I have been into that point.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think he is. But here we will assume we are dealing with a thing which has been invented and there may be cases in which there is a German invention like it. The onus of

579
proof is on the inventor to show that he did not know anything about that. I would have thought that in putting his case absolutely frankly to the Court of the Comptroller he would have to say in his affidavit: "I did invent this thing when I was a prisoner of war"—or an internee as the case may be. I agree that internees should be included in this—"in Germany." He would further say "I was able to put the whole thing on paper, and I have put in my application as soon as I returned here." The Comptroller, kind hearted as one can assume that he will be and anxious as he undoubtedly will be to give the man the benefit of the doubt, will be strictly bound by the words in the Act. So I hope that this will be looked at and that something will be done to ensure that we may be perfectly certain that provision is made in accurate legal phraseology to protect these people.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will not attempt, to bandy arguments with the noble Viscount on matters of legal knowledge but I assure him that we shall do our best to give expression to the principle which he is upholding. I would reiterate, however, that we think that cases of this kind are very unlikely to occur—in fact, we very much doubt if any such case ever will occur.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word because I do not want the noble Lord to brush this aside when he comes to consider this clause? I have been told that at the beginning of the war the Germans captured many people of great scientific attainments and they would not let them leave Germany. Those people, therefore, have been in Germany throughout the five-and-a-half years or more that the war has continued. What they have produced in the way of inventions or designs I cannot say, but it might be that, in this connexion, there are one or two rather important matters which would come within the scope of Viscount Swinton's Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: There is a further point on this. There have been, as I know personally, a large number of inventions, particularly in the line of cooking stoves, evolved both in German and Japanese prison camps. In many instances the design of these stoves reveals
580
great ingenuity, and, indubitably, some of them are going to be patented in this country. Similar things may well exist elsewhere, and I think that this is a consideration which the Government might take into account also.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WAR-TIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL.
5.20 p.m.
Amendments reported according to order.
Clause 2:
Power to sanction war-time non-compliance with building laws or planning control.
(3) Where the authority determine that works or a use fail to comply as aforesaid they shall further determine whether the works or use notwithstanding the failure, be deemed so to comply, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as to the time for which the works or use may be continued, the carrying out of alterations, or other matters, as the authority think expedient.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (3), after "whether," to insert "having regard to all relevant circumstances." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will give effect to the objection explained by the noble and learned Viscount Lord Maugham, in the Committee stage of the Bill when he moved a longer Amendment. As I stated at the time, the Bill as it stands will empower the local authority or the Minister on appeal to reach a decision having regard to all relevant circumstances. As your Lordships will remember, my assurance did not remove all doubt. The noble and learned Viscount and other noble Lords remained of the opinion that there would be advantage if the Government were to insert in the Bill words such as those which are now proposed to be included. The noble and learned Viscount also urged that the matter should be reconsidered, and although I gave no pledge at the time I felt it was only right that the matter should be reconsidered. The reset is this Amendment and the two later Amendments on the Paper. I will

581
only add that I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to regard the insertion of these words as a reasonably satisfactory response to his appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 40, after ("whether") insert ("having regard to all relevant circumstances").—(Lord Henderson.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord very sincerely for having taken almost the last possible opportunity for putting words into the Bill which substantially I think, carry out my object. We have got to remember that this is a very singular measure, due to war that we hope will not occur again in our lifetime, and it has had the result that buildings and works of great importance have been put up in various parts of the country with some disregard of provisions which would have been remembered in peace time, and that the time for objecting to these works has gone by. I am not for one moment suggesting, at any rate now, that the Bill was unnecessary, but I think it is necessary, and I told your Lordships on the previous occasion that I felt it was very important, that before serious orders were made with regard to works and buildings and the use of land by authorities responsible for enforcing by-laws or planning control, the fullest possible consideration should be given in particular to the circumstances in which the buildings were erected or in which that use was begun. Of course, being only human I prefer my form of Amendment to that which the noble Lord has accepted, but I think that the noble Lord's words would carry out the desire which I have in mind and I have great pleasure in saying that so far as I am concerned, I am satisfied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, after ("proper") insert ("having regard to all relevant circumstances")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
582
Page 4, line 21, at end insert ("having regard to all relevant circumstances").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Supplementary provisions as to enforcement.
(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act and of the last foregoing subsection, the time within which a notice of irregularity may be served under subsection (2) of Section eighty-nine of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, in respect of works carried out during the war period shall be the expiration of twelve months from the end of that period or the time limited by the said subsection (2), whichever is the later.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "last foregoing subsection"and insert" two last foregoing subsections."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the next Amendment is to repair a drafting oversight. Subsection (4) should obviously be subject to the provisions not only of subsection (3) but of subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out ("last foregoing subsection") and insert ("two last foregoing subsections").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.29 p.m.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment).

India (Proclamations of Emergencies).

Local Government (Financial Provisions).

Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland).

Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions).

Bank of England.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 5:
Statutory Instruments which are subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
5.—(1) Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act, it is provided that any statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament, the instrument shall be laid before Parliament after being made and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall apply thereto accordingly, and if either House, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy thereof is laid before it, resolves that the instrument be annulled it shall thenceforth become void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under or to the making of a new statutory instrument.
(2) Where any Act passed before the date of the commencement of this Act contains provisions requiring that any Order in Council or other document made in exercise of any power conferred by that or any other Act shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall cease to be in force or may be annulled, as the case may be, if within a specified period either House presents an address to His Majesty or passes a resolution to that effect, then, subject to the provisions of any Order in Council made under this Act, any statutory instrument made in exercise of the said power shall by virtue of this Act be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament and the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection shall apply thereto accordingly in substitution for any such provisions as aforesaid contained in the Act passed before the said date.
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by" where that word occurs for the second time, and insert "in pursuance of a." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can explain the effect of this Amendment; it really brings in the whole question of the later Amendments too. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, raised a rather interesting point which I promised to look into. This Amendment and the succeeding ones are the result of the consideration which followed that promise and are really, therefore, due to the vigilance of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. The original proposal was that where the House resolved against any Order, whether an Order in Council or a Ministerial Order, that should
584
automatically put an end to the Order. That has been the practice since the war started, but, although that was the legislative enactment, in fact the old procedure has been followed, and either House wishing to strike out an Order has done so by means of the machinery of a Prayer.
The noble Lord pointed out that now that we were out of the war there was a good deal to be said for going back to the old constitutional way, by means of the Prayer, not mainly because it seemed to be more polite to the Sovereign, but for the practical reason that if you did it by means of a Prayer and the Prayer was then given effect to by an Order in Council, then you would have both Orders in Council in the same book or series of books. Every year there is a book called the Statutory Rules and Orders. You will find an Order in Council promulgated in that book, and if either House moves its Resolution and there is a Prayer, and that Prayer is given effect to by another Order in Council, that second Order in Council will also be in the book, if in the same year, or in the succeeding volume if it comes the year afterwards.
Therefore, there is a practical reason why we should adopt this course. Obviously, there should be no interval of time after either House has passed its Resolution during which the Order continues to be effective. It should, without prejudice to what has been done under it beforehand, from that moment of time cease to be operative. I think that by the Amendment which stands in my name we have achieved that result. This Amendment I am now moving is, since the Resolution of the House is in itself going to put an end to the Order, going to strike out the words "by Resolution of either House" and insert the words "in pursuance of a Resolution of either House." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.48 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as the Lord Chancellor has taken the convenient course of dealing with his sequence of Amendments under this one, perhaps your Lordships will allow me also to say what I have to say on this one, too,

585
I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for the way he has met the points I made. My Amendment—which is also on the Order Paper—sought to achieve this change in a somewhat different manner. The two main differences between my Amendment and the Amendments in the name of the Lord Chancellor are, first, that my Amendment would, as it stood, have allowed action to go on being taken under an Order after one House of Parliament had passed a Resolution seeking to have it annulled. I certainly agree that the Lord Chancellor's proposal is the better one and once that Resolution has been passed by either House, a Minister should cease to operate under the Order against which the House has successfully prayed.
The second point is that I made a slight distinction between the Order in Council and the Statutory Instrument made by a Minister. In the case of the second, I sought- to have it revoked by the same Minister who made it, but it scorns to me that there is little distinction in that because all these Orders in Council are in the same volume. Whether the Minister's Order is revoked by Order in Council or by the Minister, there is not that practical objection that there is if you have to seek through the pages of Hansard to see whether a Resolution has been passed or not. I do not wish to keep your Lordships any longer except to say how grateful I am to the Lord Chancellor for the way he has dealt with this matter, and to intimate at the same time that I have no intention of moving any of my Amendments on the Order Paper.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, as I took part in the previous debate on this matter, perhaps I may be allowed to express the thanks I feel to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for having so fully met the desires that were expressed on that occasion. It is another example of the readiness with which the Lord Chancellor meets requests that are made from the body of the House whenever he thinks that they have some reason and merit in them. Our thanks are also due and ought to be rendered to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to whom we are indebted for the fact that this matter was brought to the notice of the House at all. Although it deals with a minor point, it has some constitutional importance, particularly from the point of view of precedent,
586
and the House ought to express its thanks. The noble Lord has also earned the thanks of posterity for having, by his vigilance, detected this somewhat recondite matter, and we should express our gratitude to him for the service that he has thereby rendered.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the instrument be annulled it shall thenceforth become void but" and to insert:
"an Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the instrument he annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the resolution, and His Majesty may by Order in Council revoke the instrument, so, however, that any such resolution and revocation shall be."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I need not say anything about this: this follows from what I have already said.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out from (" that ") to (" without ") in line 26 and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My - Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("thereunder") and insert ("under the instrument").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Regulations.
(2) Every statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment on this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved:
Line 43, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SCOTTISH AIR LINES.
5.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW THE EARL OF GLASGOW rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that unless immediate assurances are given to Scotland for freedom to form a Scottish Public Utility Corporation to own, operate and develop Prestwick Airport and a similar Corporation to operate Scottish Air Lines with opportunity equal to Scottish shipping, the country is faced with the prospect of a strong separatist movement; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, since the last debate on Civil Aviation in your Lordships' House, the Government have thrown two sops to Scotland: a repetition of a previous promise to designate Prestwick as an international airport, and a promise that amongst the regional organizations which are to be set up there should be one for Scotland. Here may I say that we have not yet heard that Prestwick had actually been designated. While we are grateful for the promise of Prestwick, nothing yet has been conceded which will allow Scottish enterprise the same chances in the air and the same opportunities of competition on world air routes as other countries. During the debate in another place, when the Parliamentary Secretary was explaining about the Regional Boards, a Scottish Member asked: "But what about the control of Scottish Air Services?" The reply was: "That is another question." It is this question of the control of Scottish Air Services which is the crux of the matter and which the Scottish people are united and determined to have settled in their favour.
On November 9 I ventured to draw the attention of the Government to the Scottish point of view in civil aviation. I said then that opposition to that policy would grow to formidable dimensions unless assurance was given on one fundamental point: a measure of control for Scottish interests and Scottish enterprise. In spite of the concessions which I have mentioned, no such assurance has been given. You will appreciate that we have a shipping point of view. When, through the enterprise of Scotsmen, the first practical steamship, the Comet, was launched on the Clyde, Scottish shipping firms seized on this entirely new idea of the steam age and developed it in a way which has been beneficial not only to Scotland but to the whole nation. Our industry, prosperity
588
and employment have, for generations, been tied to the overseas carrying trade.
Now again, something has come into being—the air age—and Scotland looks on air commerce as the biggest single opportunity which has offered itself since the inception of the first steamship. Such an opportunity has taken hold of the minds and hearts of Scotsmen, and they have no intention whatever of having such a splendid chance reduced any further by the restricted outlook of Whitehall officials, who apparently cannot see any further than the outskirts of the capital. I ask your Lordships to imagine what would have resulted if, at the outset, the management of Scottish shipping had been put into the hands of Cockneys who had no interest in it and were determined to prevent its growth, and if Scottish shipping firms had been prohibited from being formed.
Those of your Lordships who have studied Scottish history—I do not know how many there are who have done so—will recall the story of the Friar of Tong-land, near Kirkcudbright in Galloway, the first Scottish pioneer of aviation, who, in the 15th Century, tried to take off from the top of a tower with a pair of home made wings. There was nothing wrong with the Friar's spirit but there was something wrong with the wings, so he fell ignominiously to earth. To-day, both in spirit and in technique, Scottish aviation is in the forefront, but the present Government is prepared to see it fall like the poor Friar of Tongland, and are content to see it lie. That is what has been happening in Scottish aviation to-day. I do not want to be unnecessarily rude, but I must say that, by their practice and stupid policy, the Government are manufacturing Scottish nationalists.
Not for hundreds of years has the feeling of Scotsmen of all parties and all classes, I will not say about Englishmen but about English interference with and neglect of Scottish interest, been so strong. I was informed by one of the Scottish Nationalist organizations that during the last few months recruits have been coming in steadily and that most of those joining had had no opportunity of studying the propaganda but were just coming in because they thought Scotsmen had not had a fair deal. Your Lordships have very little knowledge of the strong feeling which has swept through Scotland

589
during the last few months on this question of aviation. Why should you? Your Lordships never read the Scottish papers, or very few of you do, which have so magnificently, time and time again, backed up the national aspirations. I believe the English Press did mention the meeting of the so-called Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, but the significance of it was quite overlooked. At that meeting a resolution, moved by the Scottish Council of Industry, was passed, the gist of which was that Scotland demanded devolution in all matters pertaining to civil aviation. There have been other gatherings of representative bodies throughout the country in which resolutions on the same lines have been passed.
The Scottish people are united on one thing, devolution in these matters, which would include the operation of their own air services, internal and overseas, the control and enlargement of Scottish airfields, the right to make aero engines for ourselves and the world, and the repair of aircraft. We want to be able to do these things free from obstruction and interference from London officials, who know little of, and, I. think, care less for, our interests. We have got the ability, the enterprise, and the men to make a great success of it. We do not wish to depart from the Government's principle of Government ownership, but we want that ownership to be Scottish and not English.
May I strike a personal note? I am not a Scottish Nationalist; I do not want to repeal the Union; I am not a fanatic of any kind. Nevertheless, I hope your Lordships do not think that all men North of the Border should speak and act exactly like Englishmen, because, of course, there is a difference between the two countries, in law and history, for instance. Therefore, if some people in Scotland think nationally, it does not mean that they think parochially, or that they wish to sever relations. One of my reasons for putting this question is to warn the Government against separatism or a strong desire for devolution, which I, as well as many Scotsmen, would greatly deplore. One of our main charges against the Government—a charge made by Lord Selkirk the other day in Glasgow, which I repeat here—is that the Government's policy is a policy of concentration in London, which is now recognized as contrary to the public interest in
590
this island. The Barlow Report states that the continued trend of the industrial population to London and the Home Counties constitutes social, economic and strategical problems which demand immediate attention. It further says that leadership is becoming increasingly centred in London, to the disadvantage of the social, cultural and civic life of the provinces. I would remind your Lordships that the findings 'of this Committee are not questioned by any political Party. In my humble opinion, the Government should make a clean-cut statement as to whether nationalization means centralization. It is right and proper that Scotland should be told what she is to expect in this matter.
The characteristic feature of the White Papers is that they lay down implicitly that Scotland is to have no contact with the outside world except through London. This will have much the same effect as the Navigation Laws of the eighteenth century by which English merchants had the monopoly of trading with the Colonies and the Plantations. It was the economic powers to which those laws gave rise which, more than anything else, forced the Act of Union of 1707 on Scotland. It is interesting to note that when the Parliamentary Secretary was explaining with pride the commencement of the new air services, he dealt exclusively with those in or out of London. I believe that by excluding Scottish subjects from full freedom to control their own commerce, the Government is infringing the Act of Union. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows. I know I am not a lawyer, and I shall probably be taken up on this, but I think it is a point which is worth mentioning.
"That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom, and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a communication of all other rights, privileges and advantages, which do or may belong to the subjects of either Kingdom."
If that means anything, it means that the Scottish people have the same rights of trade and navigation in the air as the English, as indeed they have in the sea for their shipping, and should be accorded permission by the Government in London to shape their policy to that effect.
If that argument has any legal flaws—and I shall probably be told by noble and

591
learned Lords that it may have—there is another aspect. If the wording of the section is intended to appy only to individuals, the implication surely is that if Scotsmen are to have the same intercourse, together with rights, privileges and advantages as English subjects, then there should be representatives from Scotland on the Scottish Aviation Board in London in order to protect Scottish interests. I put that point and I hope some noble and learned Lord will take me up and give his opinion. As a working woman in Paisley wrote to me, "We are not the scullery maid of England, fit only to pick up the crumbs which fall from her table." That is quite true. We are not a province of England; we are a nation, the other kingdom of this island.
I do solemnly warn the Government to expect a strong separatist movement or a movement towards devolution in the near future unless an assurance is given to Scotland that its main international airport, Prestwick, which we look upon as the equivalent to the River Clyde, will be owned and managed by a Scottish Public Utility Board under Scottish direction, which will be able to develop it to its fullest extent, and further, unless full freedom is given to a similar Board to operate Scottish airlines on the world air-routes, with every bit as much opportunity and freedom to face the commercial competition of other countries, including England, as has been enjoyed, for the benefit of the whole of Great Britain, by Scottish shipping. I shall be told that a Scottish Board for the control of Scottish aerodromes has already been conceded. That is just a gesture; such a Board may be Scottish in composition, but it will have to take its orders from London.
Scotland has no intention of being dragged down by the bungling of English officials, however well intentioned. They know little of our needs and interests, and if they did know anything about them, they would probably do nothing to safeguard them. Therefore it may be worth while to ask the Minister if he appreciates the possibilities of Scottish opinion, and if he realizes that the only industry, apart from shipping, which is big enough to justify a separatist movement is aviation, and that Eire has, in aviation alone, justified her freedom from the ineptitudes of British air policy. Immediate freedom
592
for these Scottish Boards or Corporations to enter world commerce is the only alternative I can offer for avoiding drastic separatist action from a strongly determined people who are being frustrated and exasperated to a grievous extent. I am asking my noble friend this question on an auspicious date; to-day all the birds get friendly with each other. Is it too much to hope that the noble Lord will use his influence on the Government in such a way as to grant the Scottish people what they so ardently desire, and in that way bring back that friendly and good neighbourly feeling which has existed between the two kingdoms for so long a period? I beg to move for Papers.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps a mere Englishman may be allowed for a moment or two to intervene, if only to express some sympathy. I do not hesitate to do that, and indeed, to venture some suggestions, because I think the noble Earl will agree that the proposals which were made during the lifetime of the last Government, after very careful consultation between the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, represented proposals which were at the same time practical and also fair and consonant with Scottish interests and Scottish, desires. Certainly I found a great deal of concurrence upon that in many quarters in Scotland—not by any means all in one Party.
Scotland's interest in aviation is perfectly natural. It is not only that she desires to have her share, her rightful share, in all developments, but, I think, she has a particular interest in aviation. Communications are difficult in Scotland, and, therefore, she has a great interest in aviation both internal and external. I do not think that it is too much to say that internal communications, intersected by waterways and mountains, are so difficult that you are, in fact, able to-day to accomplish, by air, journeys in matters of minutes which would take almost an equivalent number of hours if you attempted to do them by road, rail and water—and you probably might find that you had to do them by a combination of all three.
Then Scotland is rightly interested in external air services. She is interested because of her great business interests and

593
also by reason of the beauty of her country which is an attraction that draws many people from other lands. Her interest is not merely to be well served, her interest is also to develop services for herself as well and not to be dependent entirely upon outside concerns. I do think it would be profoundly unfortunate if the air which ought to unite nations by bringing them closer together became something which divided this kingdom. And indeed—I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me in this—Scotland realises to the full that she cannot be separatist in this matter, that she depends on these links and desires these links. But—and this I hope is what the Minister is going to deal with in his answer—she rightly claims that Scottish enterprise and Scottish experience should be able to play its full part. I stress both. There is no lack of enterprise and no lack of experience in Scotland. Actually to-day, and for years past, the Scottish air services, Scottish Airways and Scottish Allied Airways—another one, I think, has come into being and is actually flying, very sportingly, some planes now—have been conducted by Scottish boards whose members know very well the local conditions of Scotland and the local needs. The boards of Scottish Airways and Scottish Allied Airways have seen what the services are that are needed in Scotland, and I believe that, within their limitations, they are giving good service.
In passing, I would observe that the aviation adventure on the part of a friar whose name I did not quite catch will not be regarded as a prototype of civil aviation in Scotland. They want, in Scotland, to have a fair chance, and we had proposed to reserve for Scottish enterprises certain services even of those which would start at once. But I want to put this most sincerely to the Minister—we wish to have an entirely independent tribunal to which anybody who wished to conduct a new airline along a new route could go for the purpose of satisfying that tribunal that he was competent, technically and financially competent, and that he would comply with the essential conditions such as treating his pilots properly and so on.
We regard that as essential—and may I say that I am not trying to make a Party point of this. I feel sure that the noble Lord who is going to reply will appreciate that I feel far too keenly about this to make it a Party matter. The
594
noble Lord has made an agreement now with America. It all depends on whether we can be efficient as to whether or not the agreement is going to be any good. To-day, you cannot tell what opportunities are going to develop. You cannot tell it with regard to passenger routes and certainly not with regard to freight. There will be innumerable ways in which air transport will develop—certainly in Scotland and for the use of Scotland. So long as you have an independent tribunal to which people can complain—and not only, or primarily, to which people can complain—
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: On the American model—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly, on the American model—but it must be independent. The tribunal should be one to which people can go and say: "I want to establish an air service. I am prepared to do that and there is a need." I do not think Scotland is asking for any undue preference in this matter. I believe that the Scottish Peers who are here would say that if they could be given a fair chance and a fair hearing and if the tribunal held that there was a better enterprise that would give Scotland better service, they would take their beating and consent to be cut out. But they say: "Give us a fair chance. Give us a fair field—an opportunity to make our case before an independent tribunal."
I want to ask the Minister how under this system, which I understand he is bound to carry through, of just nationalizing everything and letting no new enterprise come in, is Scotland—or England indeed for that matter—going to have a chance of making her complaint. This is a two-fold point. If you are not allowed to serve yourselves—as I think you should be—how are you going to get good service provided for you, and what powers is this body going to have to say that these services are fairly demanded and that they shall run?
I do not wish to add more than a sentence or two about airfields. Scotland developed Prestwick, it is true, with a good deal of help from the Government. But that was so in the case of a great many other airfields all over the country. And I want to put this to the Minister with what, I hope, he will consider sweet

595
reasonableness—if Scottish interests, a Scottish public utility company, wishes to operate Prestwick and develop it then really for the sake of uniformity need it all be put in a straight waistcoat of nationalization or cannot they have the chance of running their own airfield with their own public utility?
6.21 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I rise to support the plea of my noble and gallant friend the Earl of Glasgow in favour of retaining control of Prestwick Airport and also the development of Scottish airlines in Scottish hands. I do so naturally having been an ardent worker for Scottish devolution (which is retaining control of our Scottish affairs in our own hands) for many years and therefore I support the noble Lord's plea. But I think he might have based his plea on better grounds. I resent the statement that he based his plea on the ground that there is a strong separatist movement in Scotland to-day. There is no such movement in Scotland to-day. Nobody is asking for separation in Scotland to-day.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: The noble Duke is suffering from a travesty of inexactitude.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I think what the noble Earl has in mind is the Scottish nationalist movement. Twenty years ago I was a leader on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party and I know that after a very short time we found there were people in the Party who were working for separation. I fought it with all the strength I could. I would not have separation, but I could not get my way and so I left the Party. When I left nearly everyone else left too. Some of them came into the Liberal Party which had sponsored devolution for 27 years, some went into the Labour Party and some into the Tory Party. The only few left were irreconcilables who called themselves Nationalists. Anyone who has been in politics for any length of time knows the bugbear that extremists are. I was very foolish. I let myself in three times for fighting as a Tory candidate, and I know that my greatest bugbear was the dyed-in-the-wool Tory. So I know perfectly well
596
what damage an extremist can do but nowadays I think devolution is making progress.
The Labour Government have pledged themselves to bring in a Bill on the lines of self-government in domestic affairs. As regards the Tory Party a candidate who was returned to Parliament only yesterday said that Prestwick must continue as a number one international airport under Scottish control and that this great Scottish airport must be maintained in preference to the bureaucratic dictatorship from Whitehall. He said that he stood for unity, that he favoured Scottish control over their own affairs and that the grip by Whitehall must be loosened. That is what a Tory candidate who was returned to Parliament yesterday with a majority of over four thousand votes, thanks very largely to his devolutional programme, has said. The Liberals have supported it for 27 years, and I feel devolution is now making progress.
Prestwick and the development of our airlines is only one matter. We have questions concerning the Forth Road Bridge, the Tay Bridge and the West Coast ports, the hydro-electric scheme and the nationalization of water and of land. If devolution was necessary in days gone past it is doubly necessary now if we are going to have nationalization of our air, nationalization of our land and nationalization of our water supply. As for authority in Scotland, is it going to be subject to long distance control in Whitehall nearly 400 miles outside our borders? Your Lordships will realize that in the British Isles there are five or six different forms of government. There is a Government in Westminster dealing with English affairs. There is one for Scotland through St. Andrew's House with a Secretary of State in charge of eighteen Departments, in charge of Scottish affairs. In Ulster there is a democratic Parliament dealing with Irish affairs and in the Isle of Man there is one of the oldest Parliaments in existence. Then there are the legislative Courts dealing with the Channel Islands affairs and the system in control of the affairs of Southern Ireland. There are six different forms of government in the British Isles but Scotland is the only country of the whole lot except England whose affairs are managed by a bureaucracy in Whitehall, by a single man, a Secretary of State who

597
has the power of a dictator, and who can and does issue orders which have the force of an Act of Parliament. Every other State in the British Isles can deal with things within their own borders, but Scotland cannot, and I say that as regards our important interests and in view of the tremendously hard work here in Westminster and of the tremendous pressure of work in Westminster, the time has come when devolution must seriously be considered. I think myself that we should begin by getting control of our airlines at Prestwick. We are told that the date for the introduction of a change of management is to be April the first. April 1 is All Fool's Day.
6.28 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a few moments and to remind your Lordships that I have had to answer questions on this particular subject of Prestwick airport in three debates in six years and as my noble friend knows, in the files of the Air Ministry I have put many things on paper dealing with this particular airport. There may be a danger of some confusion between very right national sentiments and hard commercial -and technical facts as regards the future of the airport. Prestwick Airport fulfils, broadly speaking, a dual function. It is what is called a designated airport. What benefits are conferred on an airport which bears the label "designated" I have not found out.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: It has not been designated yet. That is the point I wanted to make.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: It is to be -designated. It is -a most valuable relief landing ground to the main centre of the Empire, London, and we shall need probably two large relief landing grounds, if not three, in addition to the main one in London and probably one in South Wales and one in Cornwall and undoubtedly at Prestwick. Then the second role of Prestwick is as a main traffic centre, and here is where I think there is some danger of confusion. Prestwick is a good airport made mainly by Exchequer money as a necessary wartime work. There is a good deal of nonsense talked about the wonderful weather there. It was mentioned only recently, in another place, that a particular member tried to get into
598
Prestwick and three times out of four he was fogged. Prestwick has good weather.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I am sorry to interrupt, but I really must protest. As a matter of fact, there were only seven days (hiring the last year, or one year, on which there was fog at Prestwick. The unfortunate thing, however, was that the late Secretary of State for Air arrived there to open a road in a fog, and that has undoubtedly gone down to posterity.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Seven days? I think if the noble Lord will check other places, he will find that they have not had appreciably more than seven days' fog. It is true that Sir Archibald Sinclair arrived in a fog. I can remember a most unpleasant half-hour after crossing the Atlantic in a Liberator when we did not know whether we were going to get in or not, because we did not know whether the fog would clear from Prestwick in time. That was my own personal experience.
The runways at Prestwick are good, but unless an enormous amount of money is spent, including the moving of a railway, they are never going to be as good as Heath Row. However, having said that, le me say at once from considerable experience that Prestwick is a first-class airport. But as to whether Prestwick Airport should be operated by a Scottish Utility Corporation or by money from the British taxpayer, depends on whether Prestwick is going to attract enough traffic to make it worth while for transatlantic and transworld aircraft to stop at that airport. If Scotland and the Northern cities south of the Border can produce enough traffic to make it attractive to operators to land there, then undoubtedly they will.
If, on the other hand, sufficient in-and-out traffic is not offered, I think it is only right that Prestwick should be by-passed or overflown unless there is a proposition that stoppages at Prestwick should be compulsory in order to fulfil national Scottish aspirations, and the extra cost of diversion of such stops should be borne by the operator concerned. I do not think we are entitled to go further and advocate a wide extension of Prestwick, and at all times say that it should be a first-class international airport. We are entitled to know: Do they advocate that all or some aircraft flying from the United

599
States should compulsorily stop at Prestwick? The second question I would ask is: Do they advocate that some services crossing the Atlantic should compulsorily be stopped at Prestwick irrespective of the wish of the passenger to get to another destination as quickly as possible, with the minimum number of landings?
If it is argued that Scottish traffic needs are the test, then let it be so. Whether this airport be operated by a Scottish Utility Corporation or by the Air Ministry—and I have great sympathy for the method of operating by a Scottish Utility Corporation—if the traffic needs of Scotland is to be the yardstick, then let it be so. It does not matter under which system that airport is operated, there will be a constant stream of aircraft in and out. But if, on the other hand, noble Lords ask for a Government decision to develop Prestwick and compulsorily make aircraft stop there on national and political grounds, then indeed I believe they will be encouraging a very considerable separatist movement south of the Border.
6.38 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not think I shall take up your time for very long. I am approaching this matter from a different angle. Only two days ago in this House I heard the noble Marquess of Aberdeen tell His Majesty's Government that there were only two subjects on which the whole Scottish nation was united, one was the Forth Bridge, and the other was Prestwick Airport. If I say a thing like that, it is merely the expression of opinion of a humble member of your Lordships' House. But when my noble friend the Marquess of Aberdeen says that, I would like to say that there is no man who, by his character, by his ability, and by his wide acquaintance with every class of Scottish society, is better able to speak for a very large portion of Scotland than the noble Marquess of Aberdeen.
Therefore I do ask His Majesty's Government to weigh very carefully what he said last Tuesday on that subject, although it was merely thrown out in the course of a speech. This question is part of a very much larger question, one into which my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has dived somewhat deeply. Not very long ago I heard the noble
600
Leader of the House say that in a very short time frontiers would be as obsolete as bows and arrows, and he deplored all these questions which aroused irritations between peoples. I should be very sorry indeed if anything should occur to weaken the intimate and close union between England and Scotland into one Great Britain, because if you put a rope between two persons or two animals, or two of anything, they are going to pull on it, and how far they pull no man can tell in advance.
How far they have pulled in the case of this once United Kingdom your Lordships may know when you consider those of our people who were lost in the Battle of the Atlantic. I feel very strongly on this question, and if His Majesty's Government, really as the noble Duke hints, have got any prospect of definitely lessening the tie between England and Scotland, I think they will be quite definitely false to the opinion and the principles expressed by the noble Leader of the House in that debate the other day. It will certainly be an indication to me that the ideas which I have cherished all my life have passed away from the world.
The point I am trying to make is this. You have got this intense feeling in Scotland on these questions. Nobody should know better than His Majesty's Government what tremendous effects might be wrought by intense feeling on any particular subject, and I do feel that that feeling has got to be allayed in some way or other. I do not know how the noble Lord, who is going to answer this, proposes to allay it, but I do urge upon His Majesty's Government and upon him that something must be done. When speaking on a subject cognate to this in my hearing, he said His Majesty's Government in this matter were not going to make the mistakes of our ancestors. I read into that statement, the implication that His Majesty's Government were not going to make mistakes at all! But I do urge them at any rate not to make a mistake on this particular point, and that something must be done to allay the present very violent state of feeling in Scotland on this matter.
6.39 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I rise to join your Lordships who have already spoken in supporting the Motion raised by my noble friend the Earl of Glasgow. I

601
would like to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation if in his reply he would clear up one point. In the White Paper recently issued it reads that—" Until Heath Row is ready, Hum, near Bournemouth, Prestwick in Scotland, and possibly one other airport will be designated as transoceanic airports." This gives the impression that when Heath Row is ready, all trans-oceanic air traffic will flow to and from this designated airport—Heath Row. If this is in fact to be the case, presumably the Minister feels that Heath Row, when finished, will be able to carry all the traffic that is being divided until it is ready between three other airports. Perhaps he will be able to clear up this point. I support the suggestion for the establishment of a Corporation in Scotland which has been recommended by all noble Lords who have spoken. Surely Scotland has every claim to organize and control her own air transport through a State Corporation similar in general set-up to the three that the Minister has already set up. Scotland has certainly earned her place in the air-world by virtue of the fact that in these islands the first corporate entity to be set up was the Blair Atholl Syndicate, established in the very early days to design, build and fly aircraft.
In addition to that, the work of the late Lord Kelvin of Glasgow has had a profound effect on the development of instruments for aircraft purposes. But the other pioneers, those of to-day, have played a great part in the development of air transport as, for example, Mr. John Sword, Captain Fresson, Mr. George Nicholson, and the honourable Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I hope the Minister may be able to give some indication as to what is going to happen to the services organized by different companies. Take the example of Allied Airways. I think the development costs of Allied Airways run to something in the neighbourhood of £30,000. Is a scheme of fair compensation to be arranged?
In connexion with the airport at Aberdeen, established by Allied Airways, there are other organizations there such as a flying club and a social club. Could not they be released so that their amenities might be made available? Perhaps the Minister could indicate as to whether, and if so, how, it is intended to utilize the services of these pioneers. For example,
602
would the honourable Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who has pioneered Air Transport in Scotland, be eligible to sit on the board of a Scottish airways corporation, assuming that one is to be set up by His Majesty's Government:? With these few words, as the time is getting late, I would like to end and say how warmly I support the noble Earl's Motion, and that I hope that when my noble friend, also a Scot, comes to reply, he will give sympathetic consideration to these developments in Scotland.
6.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, this debate has ranged very wide indeed, and far away from the subject of the Motion. We have touched upon an enormous number of subjects which have not the remotest connexion with civil aviation whatsoever. Civil aviation matters and policies have to be decided, as has been said by one noble Lord this afternoon, very much upon a basis of extremely hard facts, and to the best of my recollection the only attempt to introduce really hard facts and arguments into this debate was made by an Englishman who apologized for intervening in it£the noble Viscount Lord Swinton. I must, in fairness to Scotland, point out that the arguments which he advanced were, in large part, demolished by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The Motion asks me to set up a Scottish corporation to administer Prestwick, and another corporation to operate Scottish airlines. Both proposals are contrary to the declared policy of the Government and, therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept them.
I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for his kindness in informing me what he proposed to say to-day; I appreciated his courtesy in that respect. Therefore, I hope he will not take offence at my saying that I thought he supported his argument with very many extravagant remarks of an extremely nationalist nature and introduced practically no factual arguments whatever in support of his Motion. I remember, in particular, one remark which the noble Earl made. He said there was nothing in our policy which would allow Scottish enterprise the same opportunities of competition on world air routes as other countries. I wish the noble Earl would think in terms of the United Kingdom, as I do, and not in terms of

603
Scotland and England. What are those other countries—America, or what?
LORD SALTOUN: Does the noble Lord mean Great Britain or the United Kingdom?
LORD WINSTER: Let us say Great Britain, if that will give more pleasure.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: If I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, I would explain that all Scotland wants is to run its own air services and its own airfields—in fact, to run its own show, separate from England.
LORD WINSTER: The meaning of those words, so far as I can see, is that the noble Earl would wish Scotland to be treated as a completely separate country in the operation of airlines, and, therefore, at complete liberty to run in competition with the airlines of England. I do not think that is a proposal which will commend itself to the good sense of your Lordships, and it was remarks such as that which led me to say I thought the noble Earl's speech contained many extravagant statements. I wish to say nothing whatever in this debate to exacerbate feelings, but will address my remarks to arguments which I think are based upon more good sense than that. I am not actuated, nor is any member of the Government, by any prejudice in this or anything else to do with Scottish aspirations. On the contrary, as my remarks will show, I have given most careful thought to considering how Scottish aims can be substantially met. I think I may fairly claim that the very many Scottish deputations which I have received on these matters have recognized this attitude on my part and have gone away satisfied that I wish well to Prestwick and to all connected with aviation in Scotland, even if I have not been able to grant all their demands.
I feel it necessary to say something about the history of Prestwick aerodrome, but not at any very great length. The aerodrome was formed in July, 1937, by Scottish Aviation, Limited, who undertook an Air Ministry contract for an elementary civilian flying school. In November, 1939, the aerodrome was requisitioned by the Air Ministry and became a Royal Air Force station. The station's services, however, continued to be carried on by Scottish Aviation,
604
Limited, under the terms of the contract with the Air Ministry. It is agreed that Scottish Aviation carried our their contract efficiently. The expenditure, however, was heavy, and, as has been mentioned by several speakers, the company's task was greatly facilitated by the fact that Government money was available.
Scottish enterprise was certainly in evidence in the development of Prestwick, but the Government in all contributed some£2,000,000. Now the Scottish Aviation Company have been notified by the Air Ministry that the contract will terminate on March 31, on which date an airport manager, representing the Ministry of Civil Aviation, will take over the management of the aerodrome. We have, however, informed Scottish Aviation that we are willing to consider letting them carry out a few of the aerodrome services on an agency basis, and they will also be free to enter into commercial arrangements with operators for the repair of aircraft. The details involved are still under discussion and my Department has had a representative at Prestwick since the beginning of January in order to discuss these matters.
The idea of a Scottish Utility Corporation to run Prestwick is one which was put forward long ago. It is said that such a corporation could pay its way, and in support of that statement I have seen a scale of landing fees. Those fees are, in my opinion, very high indeed, and I think would have the effect of driving traffic away. In any case, the method of assessing such landing fees will be agreed on an international basis, and a Scottish corporation would not, therefore, be able to increase its revenue to any material extent.
I consider that the creation of a Scottish corporation would be a backward step. Aerodromes ought to serve the nation as a whole and not local interests. If a separate corporation were formed for Prestwick, similar demands would come from other places inevitably, and the whole of the Government policy for the nationalization of transport aerodromes would break down. There is no fear whatever of local needs at Prestwick being overlooked, because the intention is to administer aerodromes on a regional basis, which will ensure that my Department is fully kept in touch with local interests.

605
Careful investigations which have been made show that such a Scottish corporation would have to be very heavily subsidised in view of the heavy cost of running a big aerodrome with hard runways. If the State is to meet such deficiencies, it must have control over the expenditure. Again, the aerodrome's position, which is an extremely complicated one, will of necessity be fluid for a considerable number of years yet, and very close co-ordination between various Government Departments will be necessary to ensure that the interests of the various Service Departments, agriculture, roads, and so on, are reconciled. Again, the building programme has got to be very carefully phased in view of the labour shortages, and this co-ordination can obviously only be done by a Government Department. Again, the radio and meteorological services have to be provided by the State. If you formed a separate corporation for Prestwick it would have to recruit various technical advisers, and it would therefore duplicate many of the functions of the Ministry of Aviation and would prove much more costly than direct administration by my Department. Such are some of the hard facts to which I have referred and some of the good reasons why the appeal made for a separate corporation has to be rejected.
Something has been said today about the merits and demerits of Prestwick. The weather there is good. I regret to hear that on one occasion a V.I.P. made three attempts to get in and was unable to do so, but I agree that that is exceptional and that the weather at Prestwick is good. Prestwick is peculiarly suitable as a bad weather alternative for Heath Row because the records show that there is very little chance of the two places being blacked out at the same time. Prestwick is well equipped with radio aids also.
As regards runways, there are two. The main runway, 2,200 yards, is fairly good, but the subsidiary runway of 1,500 yards is of little use. It is undulating, it is badly constructed and the approaches are bad. That subsidiary runway is no longer used by B.O.A.C., although it can still be used by small aircraft. It is contended that only two runways at Prestwick are necessary in order to give almost 100 per cent. regularity. Well, there are differences of opinion about this, but it
606
can be said that with two runways—that is, the existing main runway plus a new subsidiary runway—a very high degree of regularity could be maintained. A three runway system is out of the question because of the constructional difficulties which are involved. There is only one possible line for a new second runway, and unfortunately it passes across the fringe of a new housing estate in the vicinity of Heathfield Aerodrome, where the drains and some of the roads have already been constructed.
Compensation would be demanded if the housing estate had to be abandoned or modified, and the Council would also want an alternative site, which is difficult to find. But again that is a matter which is being gone into, and a meeting to consider it is being held on the site this week between all the parties concerned. The main runway at Prestwick could be extended in either an easterly or westerly direction, but again there are formidable difficulties. Extension westerly would involve the tunnelling or diversion of the main road, and if extended beyond 700 yards it would involve the tunnelling or the diversion of the railway.
I think it will be seen from these facts that there are many difficult and complicated matters to consider in these arguments about Prestwick, and matters which really cannot be solved by appeals to national sentiment. Care, however, is being taken and a detailed works survey is, being carried out by my Department immediately, so that the various schemes proposed for Prestwick can be assessed and accurate estimates of costs prepared. But I warn your Lordships that a new second runway will undoubtedly be very expensive as it involves the cutting of a mineral railway and a considerable amount of levelling.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Could you give any estimate of the Cost?
LORD WINSTER: I regret I cannot. That is one of the objects of the survey and investigations which are being carried out, in order that we may get reliable statistics in these matters. But the construction of a second runway would demand consideration of the value received for the money which would be expended; and traffic conditions and the degree of regularity' which would be obtained would all have to come into the picture. Now

607
about the transatlantic services, a question which involves also consideration of the aerodrome at Rineanna—the Shannon airport. To fly from Heath Row to New York via Rineanna is nine miles longer and via Prestwick ninety-eight miles longer than flying direct. It is argued, however, that although the great circle distance is eighty-nine miles longer than via Rineanna, the head winds on the westerly crossing are less severe in a northerly direction and this compensates for the extra distance.
I think there is some evidence for this, but records would have to be taken over a very long time and related to various altitudes before definite conclusions could be drawn. But even if it is found that that argument is correct, Rineanna still has the advantage of being the mast westerly point, and the stage from Rineanna to Gander or Prestwick to Gander is the governing one as regards payload in transatlantic operations. It has been stated that we favoured Rineanna by running shuttle services there. B.O.A.C. did, of course, run a shuttle service to Rineanna to connect with the flying boats at Foyne, but the R.A.F. have also run a service between London and Prestwick to connect with transatlantic services, and plans are at this moment in hand to run a civil service between London and Prestwick when that R.A.F. service is withdrawn.
Scottish aviation contends that if we made Prestwick attractive, and advertised it sufficiently, American services would use it to a large extent, particularly on the route to the countries of Northern Europe. But operators have to carry passengers to where the passengers wish to go; that is the essential thing to remember in this question of air operations. You cannot take the passengers to somewhere you wish them to go, and where they do not wish to go; you must take the passengers to where they wish to go. I have no power to tell American operators which of the designated aerodromes they shall use; all I can do is to see that proper facilities are available if the American operators wish to use Prestwick, and that I will do.
Now about the comparison with Heath Row. It is said we are spending £25,000,000 on Heath Row, and are unwilling to spend anything on Prestwick. I
608
will always give careful consideration to the needs of Prestwick, but the need for a transatlantic terminus near London is obvious. The two sites are, of course, not comparable. As already stated, Prestwick can never have anything but two runways, whereas at the carefully selected site of Heath Row, we have plenty of room and are planning nine, three of which can be used simultaneously. Nevertheless, let me again make it clear that I have more than once categorically stated that Prestwick will be designated permanently as an international airport, open to all international air services which choose to use it. The United States schedule of routes agreed upon at the recent conference at Bermuda includes calls at Prestwick. Further than that, plans have been made for British international services to be operated via Prestwick in accordance with traffic requirements. Certain B.O.A.C. services will operate via Prestwick, even after Heath Row is in use. I will give very careful consideration to the development of Prestwick in the light of traffic demands. In other words, we are committed to the use of Prestwick in the long-term as well as in the short-term future.
On a review of all the facts which have been brought to my notice—and I know of no subject which has occupied more of my time since I have been at the Ministry than these questions connected with aviation in Scotland—I confidently believe there will be sufficient air traffic to justify the provision of an international airport in Scotland. Certainly there is no site other than Prestwick available in relation to the populous southern Scottish cities. The development of Prestwick, if there is scope for such development, is obviously more economical than new construction. I wish to stress a very important point, and that is that I have to find out if the existing runways are adequate to bear Constellations and Boeing 377s. I have this under investigation at the moment as a matter of urgency. If the answer is that they are adequate, then immediate extension is not necessary, since we know what the projected types, British and American, are which will be able to use Prestwick for the next few years.
Much misconception has arisen over the decline in activity at Prestwick. The dense traffic during the war was all military

609
traffic and was due to the strategic situation of Prestwick as well as to its good weather record. That that is the main cause of the decline in activity at Prestwick is a matter which is often overlooked. That is why the activity has lessened, and not because of any hostility or prejudice towards Prestwick on the part of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I must stress one other point very briefly. When one is considering developments at Prestwick, it is necessary to have regard to the labour situation. There are other aerodromes in Scotland which also require development, and new sites must be developed in the Highlands and in the Islands.
As regards the proposals for a separate Corporation to operate Scottish air lines, it is desirable that Scottish air lines should be operated within the British European Corporation for many reasons, of which I will only quote one or two. Pilots and aircraft are interchangeable, and by operating from a common pool the size of the pool is reduced. You get one main maintenance and overhaul organization, and a common system of training, all of which reduces overheads. By having one operating organization instead of two, you certainly achieve a reduction in fixed overheads. Then Scotland is bound to have a number of un-remunerative services—the geographical features which have been referred to in this debate show that—which it is necessary, or at least desirable, to operate in the public interest, and deficiencies on those services must be spread over as many remunerative services as possible. That is another very potent argument why one corporation instead of two is necessary.
Although I have had to make certain points and advance certain arguments against what has been proposed in the Motion, nevertheless the Government have always been anxious that Scotland should take its part in the operation of air services. I have, therefore, been giving consideration to the possibility of forming a Scottish Airways Division as part of the proposed British-European Airways Corporation. Such a Division would make provision for local management to meet the special circumstances of services of interest to Scotland, and, while forming part of the main Corporation, would at the same time ensure that
610
there was the most economic use of aircraft and other resources so that the services would be operated in the most economical manner. Do let me stress this point. In the years which lie immediately ahead, when we shall have, through no fault of our own, to face very severe American competition, one of our main hopes of standing up to that competition lies in the efficient and economic operation of our airlines. That must be the paramount consideration.
In order to ensure that such a Division as I have mentioned will be an effective component of the Corporation, and that the needs of Scotland are properly interpreted, I am also considering that a Scottish Advisory Committee should be set, up to advise the European Corporation. I have been looking through my papers in preparation for this debate, and I find tint last September 1 minuted in the following words: "Scotland must have a fair deal. We wish to give Scotland the same good service that we intend to give the rest of the United Kingdom. We must work on the assumption that the industrial area of Scotland will attract international traffic."
Those were the words of my minute last September, and in view of those words, written at a time when the problems in connexion with aviation in Scotland were first coming to my notice, I think that there is a clear indication that far from there being any prejudice in my mind, of the kind indicated in the noble Earl's speech, it has, from the first, been my endeavour to meet the needs of Scotland, in harmony with the general policy of the. Government, as expressed by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in the debate on civil aviation in another place quite recently.
I think that, in these remarks, I have answered most of the questions which have been put by noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. If I have omitted to deal with any, I hope that my attention will be called to them. I am always most anxious to answer points which are put to me. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I noticed, expressed a certain amount of sympathy for the terms of the Motion, and lie, very naturally, referred to certain proposals for Scotland made by himself when he held my office. I have not got those proposals before me at this moment, but I do not recollect

611
that his "practical and fair" proposals for Scotland included two Corporations such as it is the object of the Motion to establish.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will read those proposals. Undoubtedly it was the intention that Scottish air services were to be run by Scottish interests. They are being so run today and that would continue if the Government did not change things. Two Corporations are run by Scotsmen and it was our intention to maintain that arrangement. Scotland was to have the chance of everything running out of Prestwick, and certain services to Scandinavia, including Denmark, were to be reserved for Scottish companies. A tribunal was to be set up to which anybody could go. The noble Lord has said that my proposals did not offer a square deal. He admitted that he had not read them, or, perhaps, I should say, that he had not refreshed his memory with them. May I now tell him what the proposals were and leave them to the judgment of the Scottish Peers?
LORD WINSTER: I will also leave something to the judgment of the House. I did not say that the noble Viscount's proposals did not provide for giving a fair deal to Scotland. I said that I had not got those proposals in front of me at the present moment. It is absurd to say that I have not read them or that I am not acquainted with them. But I said that, to the best of my recollection, they did not include the setting up of two such Corporations as is proposed in the Motion. Those were my words. The noble Viscount has attributed language and words to me which I most certainly did not use.
Now as regards what he said about a tribunal. He proposed the establishment of a tribunal to whom an operator could apply for the right to run an air service or air services, and he said that our proposals will not include anything of that nature. That, quite naturally, is so because the policy of the Government is that scheduled air services shall be run under a system of public ownership. Therefore, it would be the height of folly to set up a tribunal to which people might go to apply for the right to controvert the declared policy of the Government. What we are going to do is to set up a tribunal to which the public will have access in
612
order to make their complaints if what they regard as necessary services are not established or if existing services do not, in their opinion, meet the public need. A tribunal of that sort is to be established so that the public will have the right to make their complaints.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Will the noble Lord consider having Scottish representation in the Ministry in London to safeguard the interests of Scotland?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before the noble Lord leaves the subject of the tribunal may I say this? In my speech, as he will see when he reads the report of it, I asked him what the rights of this tribunal will be. Will the Minister be bound, by its decisions?
LORD WINSTER: The nature of the tribunal, its powers and its machinery will all be defined in the Air Transport Bill which is to be presented to Parliament. As regards the question put by the noble Earl, I have told your Lordships of the proposals that I have under consideration for making sure that Scottish needs and interests are represented, and I really think that they adequately cover the point which he has raised.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Representation in the Scottish Division do you mean?
LORD WINSTER: And on an advisory committee. I think what I have said about those proposals amply covers the noble Earl's point. Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked: "What is meant by designation?" No doubt it has slipped his memory, but he must have been very familiar with the term. Under the Two Freedoms Agreement, a Government has the right to designate the airports in its territory which shall be used for second freedom purposes. Lord Sempill put to me what I am bound to say appeared to me a very extraordinary question. He spoke of a gentleman by name and he asked me if I am prepared to put him on the board of a Corporation which is not yet formed, and which there is no intention of forming under the Government policy. I do not wish to set myself up as a judge in these matters, but I think it will make debates in your Lordships' House very difficult if advocacy of a gentleman's claims to a position is to be made in this

613
way, the gentleman's name being given. Of course, I could not possibly deal with a question of that sort.
LORD SEMPILL: May I tell the noble Lord that I wished to discover if a pioneer in aviation who is a member of another place was eligible for such a position, paid or unpaid.
LORD WINSTER: I wish the question had been put in that way. But advocacy was made of a certain gentleman's qualities in regard to aviation, and I was asked if that specific gentleman would be eligible for a position on the Corporation. As regards the general question, I may say that Members of Parliament are not eligible.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Members of the House of Commons.
LORD WINSTER: I am sorry. Yes, of course, I should have said Members of the House of Commons. They are not eligible for seats on these Corporations. Well, my Lords, on this St. Valentine's Day I think that we have had a very pleasant debate. Very contentious subjects have been in issue, about which, I know, feelings very properly run very strongly indeed, but on the whole I would say that the little birds in their nests have agreed fairly well to-day. The noble Earl's Motion will have accomplished a good purpose if this debate has served, as I hope it may have, to dispel misunderstandings. We shall get on quicker in meeting the aviation needs of Scotland if we lay aside, once and for all, the suspicions and animosities which I was so sorry to find played a certain part in the noble Earl's speech. I say let us go forward in a sensible broad-minded way with mutual understanding and common sense. We shall get on better that way.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, for the information of your Lordships, I should like to say that what the noble Lord has said about the Scottish Division is exactly what I hoped.
7.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for his courteous reply and I have to assure him that although my speech sounded rather in the way he described just now, there was really no animosity about it at all. The noble Lord also took me to task for
614
not being factual., but I had to put the point of view of the whole of the nation of Scotland to him and it is not so much a point of view as a sentiment which is animating the people of Scotland to-day. I will not make a long speech in reply, but with regard to the development of Prestwick, I think if we had been permitted to, we could well have developed Prestwick ourselves. The noble Lord knows quite well than. I have nothing to do with the aviation company. I am speaking entirely as a Scotsman looking at this from the outside but I have seen the plan for the development of Prestwick and I am quite sure the money could be found for the development of the airport. If Scotland had control I think we could overcome these difficulties.
The noble Lord spoke about the shuttle service from Ireland to Prestwick. Why should Prestwick airport be designated now? Why should it not have been designated six months before the Irish got their chance? What a chance for Scotland if only we had a treaty with America which got our planes to Prestwick without having to go to Rineanna. It is rather hard luck on us that this treaty has been made between Ireland and America and that they got the line there. If the Government—if I may say so with respect—had been awake, surely we should have had Prestwick designated long ago, so that these aircraft would have had to go to Prestwick instead of Rineanna.
LORD WINSTER: If American operators had indicated that they wished to schedule their routes through Prestwick the facilities would have been given them but the American operators go to the Civil Aeronautics Board and get their licences for the route they wish to operate.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Surely that is the explanation. We were so slow in getting off the mark. We all know that American airmen prefer Prestwick to any other airport in this country.
LORD WINSTER: I cannot compel the American operators to come to Prestwick unless they wish to do so and had they expressed the wish to do so they would have been able to go to Prestwick.
EARL OF GLASGOW: I ant quite sure that we shall appreciate what the noble Lord said with regard to the various arrangements he has got in mind. I am

615
not quite sure about the Divisional Board. Is it for operating Scottish Air Services?
LORD WINSTER: I think it is rather late for me to repeat my speech. May I suggest that the noble Earl looks at my remarks in Hansard to-morrow? However, what I said was that I was giving consideration to the possibility of farming a Scottish Airways Division as part of the proposed European Air Corporation.
EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I have nothing more to say, and I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WEST AFRICAN COCOA INDUSTRY.
7.24 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if they can now, or in the near future, make any statement on future marketing policy for the West African Cocoa industry.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, consultations are being held with the various parties interested in this question and consideration is being given to points raised in the course of those consultations. I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to make a statement of His Majesty's Government's policy in the matter but the noble Lord can be assured that in accordance with the undertaking given in another place by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies on March 29, 1945, the funds already provided for the establishment of marketing organizations in West Africa will not be drawn on for that purpose until a detailed scheme has been laid before Parliament.

PRICES AND SERVICES CONTROL.
7.25 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON rose to ask His Majesty's Government why it is necessary to take Powers under S.R.O.
616
1945, No. 1611, para. 1. 55 A.B. (1) to control prices and services in respect of any particular person or undertaking.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the question standing in my name I presume that the effect of this Order is to stop profiteering in essential and non-essential goods, for the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the debate on Clause 2 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill under which this Order exists, said:
"At the present time we are in a difficulty, and any Government would be in a difficulty, with regard to price fixing, and for this reason: that under Clause 1 we have got powers to fix the prices for essential goods and services but not for non-essential goods and services; while under the Price Control Acts of 1939 to 1943 we have powers to fix the prices for non-essential goods but only in general categories and not with reference to the prices charged by particular manufacturers. The object of this clause briefly is to stop a gap, to enable us to fix prices, if required, for nonessential goods and services, and if necessary to fix the particular prices charged by manufacturers supplying such goods and services."
The noble Lord did not give an explanation why His Majesty's Government require the power to fix prices with regard to a particular manufacturer and in connexion with that I should be most grateful if he could bear these two points in mind. First of all, the powers under this Order give power to discriminate in price fixing between manufacturers and individuals in the same class of business; and to make it a little clearer perhaps I should read exactly what the powers are:
"A competent authority may by order provide for controlling the prices to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description, and for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the competent authority thinks it expedient for the purposes of the order to provide; and any such order may prevent the doing of anything regulated by the order except under the authority of a licence granted by such authority or person as may be specified in the order and may be made so as to apply either to persons or to undertakings generally or to any particular person or undertaking or class of persons or undertakings, and either to the whole or any part of any undertaking, and so as to have effect either generally or in any particular area."
I should like to give an example of what these powers mean. It means that under them it is possible to discriminate between one manufacturer and another or one shop and another engaged in manufacturing or selling the same class of commodity. I will take as an example the same quality ladies' pig-skin handbags.

617
That is a purely hypothetical example to try to make myself more specific. The second point is that whether one person or many are concerned in a class of business, it is still a class of business irrespective of the numbers engaged in it, and surely the term "class of business" is enough to cover all eventualities. To make myself a little clearer there, what I mean to say is that whether one person or persons or one manufacturer or many manufacturers are the sole manufacturers of a certain article or class of goods, that particular class of goods and those engaged in it comprise the whole sum of people engaged in that same class of business. In conclusion, if the term "class of goods of any description" is sufficient to cover the purpose for which this Order exists, would it not be better to change the Order accordingly instead of giving perhaps assurances which are not the law? The only thing that is the law is the Order.
7.31 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, may I at this very late hour just intervene for one moment? I am bound to say I regret it is so late, and that the House is so small. In fact, I regret that the noble Lord has merely asked a question, because he has raised in that very brie: speech, complicated as it was by having to read Orders in Council—which are dreadful things to read anyway—quite a fundamental point to which perhaps the noble Lord who is going to reply will allow me to direct attention. The point is this. As a result of the Order in Council empowering the Board of Trade, I think it is, or the Ministry of Supply, whichever it may be—
LORD PAKENHAM: It is the Board of Trade.
LORD WOOLTON: The Board of Trade is empowered to make specific decisions regarding the products of individual businesses. I know that the whole object of this thing is to prevent profiteering. But do you realize what it does? Different manufacturers produce articles of almost equal value. In the old days that we used to know, they were in the habit of selling them in the open market; they got substantially the same price, and the public paid the same price. That no longer happens.
618
It no longer happens because as a direct result of the power to which the noble Lord has referred, you have all sorts of different prices—I agree comparatively near—for articles of equal value, but produced at unequal cost because of the productive capacity of the individual firms. The result is that we are all getting cluttered up, and it would indeed be a very useful thing if the noble Lord would be good enough to direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade—who I am sure is most anxious to get efficiency into industry—to the way in which this clause is being operated, and would ask him if he would be content to withdraw the particular clause which enables him to direct individual firms instead of dealing with classes of merchandise. I am sorry to have detained the House, but the noble Lord has raised a point of some importance. I thought it was worth while intervening to thank him for having raised it, and I am sure the noble Lord who is going to reply will also be grateful.
7.34 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have just addressed us I, too, regret that the hour is so late, and that the House is inevitably so small, and therefore we cannot, in the nature of things, give the attention which is proper to these issues that have been raised this evening. May I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fair-fax, for quoting me in this House? I have never been quoted in this House before. Perhaps I shall not be again. I was once quoted in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, who was then Under-Secretary of State for War, and he lost his post within a week. That is the only time I was quoted. I hope no such fate will overtake the noble Lord!
Perhaps I should clear up a misconception which lies behind the question as drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, and which is not, I think, behind anything which he mentioned in his speech. I am sure he will not think me pettifogging if I point out that Statutory Rule and Order 1611 and the relevant passage of Statutory Rule and Order 1613 are both concerned with price fixing. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that his question as drafted would scent to read rather greater powers into the Orders in question

619
than actually exist. May I further remind the noble Lord, and indeed the whole House, that these important issues that have been raised to-night have been thoroughly explored in this House within recent times, namely, at the various stages of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. You may recall that certain apprehensions were expressed, particularly from the constitutional aspect, at the early stages of that Bill's passage, but I should like to think it is true to say these misapprehensions were largely dispelled, perhaps altogether dispelled, by the explanation given by the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
If the noble Lord was not in the House on these occasions, I would refer him to Hansard for November 8 and November 15, where these various issues were gone into at some considerable length. I will be brief, and give a specific answer to the specific question. The reason why the Government require these powers is quite simple, namely, that they are an essential part of the—technique of price-fixing, with whose general objects of preventing profiteering and inflation I feel sure the whole House is in sympathy. That is the short answer. I do not know whether the House wishes me to elaborate the point at any greater length. I will just say, before sitting down, that in particular there are three sets of circumstances where it has been found essential during the war to fix the prices of articles provided by particular undertakings. The three cases are these. Firstly, where a particular article is made by one particular firm and by one alone. I believe I am right in saying—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that all the clothing worn by male ballet dancers is made by one particular firm. You will appreciate that does not represent a tremendous output.
LORD WOOLTON: It is most important and often paying!
LORD PAKENHAM: That is one case where it is all made by one firm. Secondly, there are cases where, under a programme arrived at in agreement between the Board of Trade and the manufacturers, it has been found mutually convenient to allocate certain styles of production to certain firms, and at the same time to fix their prices. Thirdly, where there are wide
620
variations between high cost and low cost producers of the same product, it is essential to fix a different price for the high cost producer from the one fixed for the low cost producer. Otherwise, if you were going to keep the high cost producer in being at all, you would have prices fixed which would give the most efficient producer far too big a profit. It is, therefore, essential in that case to vary the prices.
There are a good many other points, particularly on the constitutional side, into which I might go, but I think from what I have said it will be plain that this is not a new power. Powers of this character were used during the war fairly widely with reference to essential goods, and now it is being found necessary as the nonessential goods come more into production to extend the war-time power slightly so as to cover non-essential goods. I am afraid I have not dealt with this matter as fully as the subject and the speech of the noble Lord really warrant, but perhaps you will forgive me in the circumstances.
LORD SALTOUN: I would like to ask the noble Lord if efficiency of production is not the Government's object?
LORD PAKENHAM: If I said anything to give any other impression, I must have failed altogether in my rather rapid exposition. As I feel sure the noble Lord knows as well as I do, this Government or any Government which is ever likely to be returned in this country is dedicated to efficiency of production.
LORD SALTOUN: I understood him to say he fixed a high price for non-efficient production of the same goods.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONwho had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government why it is necessary to take power to give direction to a particular business under S.R.O. 1945, No. 1613, said: My Lords, arising out of the second question standing in my name, I have very little further to add to what I said before as the principle is the same in both cases, the only difference being that in the second case the powers are not quite so wide. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for the lucid explanation he gave to my question.
LORD PAKENHAM: Was there a particular point the noble Lord wished answered?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Nothing further than in the previous question.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Borough of Ilford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

STOKE-ON-TRENT GAS ORDER, 1946.

  MARCH GAS ORDER, 1946.
  Report from the Special Orders. Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it
  622
  necessary to call the attention of the House.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1946.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise no important questions of policy or principle other than those which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Parliamentary Electors (War Time Registration) Act, 1943, the Representation of the People Act, 1945, and the Elections and Jurors Act, 1945, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention; and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.