Lords Sitting of 18 February 1946

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Viscount Hardinge—Took the Oath.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

THE WORK OF THE CIVIL SERVICE.
4.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to call attention to the excessive burden of work and responsibility imposed upon the Civil Service by the trend and volume of current legislation and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking or propose to take to remedy the situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, some of your Lordships might think, from the terms of this Motion, that my aim was passionately to advocate a large increase in the Civil Service. That, in fact, is far from my desire, but I have to take not the facts as most of us would like them to be, but the facts as they are in an increasingly regimented and control-ridden world: In what I say this afternoon, I should like at the outset to disclaim any thought of making any attack upon the personnel of the Civil Service. My quarrel is with the system and with those who are responsible for bringing the system to its present perilous plight.
My main thesis is simple and, I believe, incontrovertible. The whole administrative working of this country is primarily based upon the Civil Service machinery. Now if that machinery is kept in good running order, if worn parts are speedily replaced, if time is given at intervals for inspection and overhaul; it works—per-
624
haps slowly and laboriously, but it works, or did work, in what we were once foolish to regard as normal times. But if that machine be consistently overloaded, if it is never given a respite for maintenance, if day by day more revolutions are expected from it, if vital parts are not replaced, then it will inescapably break down, and I believe, without any language of exaggeration, that at the present moment the Civil Service machine is on the threshold of a breakdown, the consequences of which may well be catastrophic.
Let us for a moment examine the position. For six arduous years the Civil Service has been working under the constant and urgent pressure of war, but during that period it was, as the Service itself would be the first to admit, invaluably reinforced by men of great industrial and technical experience from outside. Now a time has come when those men are returning to their pre-war occupations and the Civil Service is left to struggle without their aid against steadily mounting odds. And not only has there been this speedy and radical reduction in numbers, especially at the top, but the volume of work operates in an inverse ratio.
Now it was clear, when the result of the last General Election was known, that unless the Government were going back upon their manifold pledges, this situation would arise, that the stream of legislation would soon attain flood level and that its character and the method of its application would entail additional burdens upon an already over-taxed Civil Service. And in the months during which the Government have been in office, that has, I submit, become apparent. If one of your Lordships has even a transient doubt of the proof of that proposition, let him reflect for a moment, for example, upon the Coal Industry Nationalization Bill, where, in clause after clause, new and onerous duties are imposed upon the Minister. It is not as if those nine elusive and expensive gentlemen who are to compose the Coal Board and to watch over the progress of every lump of coal from the cradle to the grate were to do so without at least occasional and frequent direction from the Minister. That is perfectly clear from the Bill. And wherever the Minister is involved, there also inevitably the civil servants in his department are involved, who have to advise him, who have to pre-

625
pare material for him, who have to take the necessary steps to publish his decisions in appropriate form and watch over the workings of those decisions at later stages.
And let the doubter also ponder the new vast and complex structure of the National Insurance Bill, or the recent heartening pronouncement of the Minister of Food in which he prophesied the continuance and, indeed, the increase over a period of years of Government interference with the nation's daily bill of fare. If he is still unconvinced, he might bear in mind that it is the declared intention to sweep the great railway companies and the small road hauliers at the earliest opportunity into the same doctrinaire net. That is a sufficiently considerable programme, and it may well be that by the time that stage is reached, the Government will have got matters into such a mess that they will once again have to "Nationalize" themselves before they can get out of it. But what is apparent from all these considerations is that the Civil Service is being asked, without pause for breath after the strain of war, to implement this great—great in volume—legislation programme.
Nor is it only a question of legislation. We have discussed on several occasions recently in this House the already widespread and obviously growing procedure of legislation by Order in Council. The preparation and publication of the necessary Orders plainly entail an added burden of work upon the civil service. Then again, you have a new House of Commons, with a large and eager number of new Members, whose zeal, which is apt to be firmly deflected by the Whips from oratorical output, sometimes seeks a safety valve in question time. We all know the galvanic effect of the arrival in a Department of a Parliamentary question; clad in its little blue jacket it is rushed from one branch to another, bringing all the other work to a standstill. The effort of producing a minimum of information produces a maximum of upheaval.
Then again, it is apparent that many Ministers—some of them indeed of the first rank—however great their experience may have been in other fields, are new to the somewhat bewildering mazes of Whitehall, besides which the other maze at Hampton Court is as straight as an arterial road. Nor is it only that the volume of work is increasing; at the same time the character of the work is
626
changing, and civil servants are being asked to undertake work which, during the war period, when this type of work first came into their offices, was no doubt largely discharged in reliance upon the advice of those who had spent a lifetime in industry and who are now no longer available.
Most of us have known in the past, either at school or at the university, those who were predestined, even at that stage for the Civil Service—the scholars who seemed to the less richly endowed amongst us to be gifted with an almost perverted passion for examinations, the people who even at that stage hitched their wagon to a star and left it to time to decide whether the star should be that of India, St. Michael and St. George or the Bath. They are men of great qualities, great attainments, great knowledge, great application and no doubt great assiduity, but they are being called upon to perform tasks which have not previously come within their competence and which, when they are already over-strained, it is surely not fair to ask them to undertake.
That being the position, the effect of the strain is, I think, clearly visible in circles far removed from Westminster, and indeed to the average citizen. In dealing with Government Departments there is far too much delay, far too much Overlapping, far too much lack of co-ordination, far too many formalities, far too many forms, and again, far too much delay. It may be inherent in the system, and if that be so, it is a system which has got to be the subject of considerable pruning at an early stage. With some experience of military staff work in two wars, I have always been a great believer in frequent and regular conferences. It may be that occasionally one attends a conference at which nothing in one's own Department comes up for discussion, but at the same time one hears the problems of one's colleagues and the steps which they propose to take to deal with them, and, by hearing their problems, one is often able to deal with one's own. I wonder how often a conference of the permanent heads of all the Departments of Government takes place. I hope often, but with the present pressure it would be interesting to know how that matter is dealt with.
Again, inside a Department there are many intersections of common interest

627
between the various branches. How much does the present pressure allow of general conferences inside the Departments to enable the heads of branches to discuss their current problems? I have said there is a lack of co-ordination. May I perhaps give one example, although there are, I think, a good many which come to the minds of most of us? On November 13 last the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made a statement in this House on distressed persons in Europe—the same statement, I think, being made in another place by the Home Secretary. The subject of the statement, your Lordships will remember, was the categories of and the circumstances in which certain persons, having relatives here, might invite them to join them in this country. The statement contained these sentences:
"Persons in this country wishing to invite a relative who falls into one of the categories should write, not to the Home Office but to the relative on the Continent, a letter showing that maintenance and accommodation are available."
That was the instruction issued, that they were to write a letter to the person on the Continent whom they wished to come to this country. My information is that the position is, or anyhow was until very recently, that whatever instructions might be issued on this subject by the Home Office, in fact the Trading with the Enemy Restrictions did not permit of the writing of letters by one individual in this country to another individual in Germany. If that he so, it discounts a little the effect of this admirable pronouncement, which went on to say that as regards Germany and Austria, where there was no British Embassy, special arrangements for dealing with applications would be worked out as soon as possible. I make no further comment on that sentence except to say that it was in Germany and Austria where the need was greatest and most urgent, and where this relief was most eagerly looked for. That statement was made on the 13th November and this is the 18th February. So far as I am aware, whatever may be going on inside the walls of the Home Office, there has certainly been no leakage for the benefit of those interested in this matter which would give any indication that any such machinery has been set up or is about to be set up. It is not that the Departments are indifferent, heartless or indolent; it is merely that they are so overworked
628
that they cannot get through their trays in order to get down to the stuff and come to a concrete decision.
What is the solution? Such suggestions as I can make are obviously tentative and based not on personal experience but merely perhaps on sound reflection. I am not saying this with any political feeling behind it. I do honestly believe that if this machine is going to continue to work, as it must continue to work, it is essential that there should be some temporary suspension of the stream of legislation which is going on. Otherwise the situation is going to become increasingly impossible. With that suspension I suggest there should be some enquiry into the whole system as it works to-day. The system is too rigid and too cumbersome for modern needs. It has grown up over a long period of time. We have all seen more and more Government offices coming into being. We have seen the annual statutes swelling from the once slender figures that we used to know into the far bulkier shape which they now possess. All this time, side by side, has grown up this Civil Service. I suggest that it has overgrown its strength, and that something has got to be done to make it more efficient and more practical for modern needs and to attune it more closely to the tempo of modern political life.
I am not going to suggest a Royal Commission. I should like to see an answer to this problem in 1946—not in 1956. But it may be that some such body as the once famous Geddes Committee which was given power to work round Department by Department, presenting an Interim Report on each as it went on, and a Final Report at the end, would achieve some success. Those are, as I say, only suggestions, but that there has got to be an overhaul I am, personally, very clear, and I think that most of your Lordships would be of the same mind. I hope that those of your Lordships who join in the debate later on will be able to supplement my suggestions with other and, perhaps, more practicable and effective proposals. I certainly hope that the Government when they come to reply, will give some indication that they have been conscious of this problem, an that they have a scheme in being of which they can, at least, give us an outline to-day. For I do believe that this is one of the most vital and formidable problems with which they are confronted, and that fail-

629
ure to solve it will not only bring their plans to a standstill—a situation which I might, personally, regard with comparative equanimity—but will impose fresh hardship and suffering on the people of the country at large. The situation is there, the problem is there, and they will, if I. may say so, not be lightly forgiven if they merely say: "Here's the problem. We know it. We recognize it. We propose to do nothing about it." The solution does not lie in inertia but in action, and I believe that drastic and urgent action is necessary if the situation is to be retrieved before the twelfth hour strikes My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.24 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships. Not only do I follow a most witty and eloquent speech from the noble Marquess, but I believe that I am breaking the silence of my line for the first time since 1880, when my reverend grandfather addressed your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Burial Bill. I had proposed to wait and absorb some further atmosphere of your Lordships' House before making my first venture in speaking but the matter with which the Motion put forward by the noble Marquess is concerned is one to which I have given a great deal of thought during the last six years, when I have been acting as a civil servant. I think that the noble Marquess has stated the problem in effective and most correct terms. I think that he must have had in mind the present unpopularity of the Civil Service in the country—an unpopularity which I do not think is deserved, but which, I am certain, will tend to increase rather than to decrease. The charges levied against those in the Service are that they are dilatory, that they evade responsibility and that they will not give decisions. To the extent that these charges are true, they result, in my opinion, from factors outside the control of the Civil Service, itself. These factors are: first, His Majesty's Government can do no wrong; second, Parliament still controls the Executive; third, the constant heavy spate of new duties which are being thrust upon the Service, and which the noble Marquess has mentioned in great detail.
His Majesty's Government can do no wrong£ From this it follows that before
630
any decision can be given by any civil servant all Departments of State having the slightest interest in that question must be consulted, their views ascertained, and a co-ordinated decision given. This makes for very much of the delay. Then consider the second factor—control of the Executive by Parliament, through letters to the Minister, Parliamentary questions and debates in both Houses. Now every good civil servant regards it as one of his primary duties to see that his Minister is never embarrassed through any of those channels. For that reason there must be on the file, in black and white, a reason for every decision. It must be a good reason and one which can be defended, if needs be, by the Minister. The file, of course, stays in the Department. This, taken in conjunction with the preceding factor I have mentioned, leads to a great deal of evasiveness. At times, it is extremely difficult to discover who has got the primary interest in a subject which overlaps so many of these Departments.
Next we come to the factor of the spate of new duties. It might seem that if you wish to double the functions of the State all you need to do is to double the Civil Service and the machine will then turn out the goods at precisely the same pace as it did before. This is not so—indeed it is very far from being the case. Take an instance. Two people can, possibly, agree a matter on the telephone. It is conceivable that three can do so. Four never can. So where three or four or more Departments are concerned: it means that nothing can ever be decided without inter-Departmental meetings and so on. Owing to the pressure of business, it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain the presence at these meetings of officials of sufficiently high power to commit their Departments. The result is that the work of the Committee is ad referendum and there is further delay. Your Lordships will ask if I have any remedies for this; state of affairs. I can suggest two palliatives. First, that every attempt should be made to cut down the number of Departments or Ministries 'by transferring their work—particularly of the new ones—to those old Departments of State who are perfectly capable of handling it, if necessary with the assistance of an additional junior Minister. That would make for great savings in Civil

631
Service time, and possibly a more coherent and well balanced policy, because it seems to be a fact that the best civil servants tend to stay in the oldest Ministries. The other palliative is that as soon as possible Departments should be housed under their own single roof. It is obvious that where you get branches of Departments lying all over London, inter-communication, personal visits and so on all occupy far more time than they should do. The only real remedy is one put forward by the noble Marquess, to cease the spate of legislation founded on this highly speculative interpretation of the wishes of the electorate, and which is disliked just as much in the Civil Service a, by the general public. I can imagine that the prospective functions of the Treasury meddling in banking and finance are little liked by the Treasury officials, while the prospect of their owning the mines I am perfectly certain fills them with the utmost horror. I think I have dealt not ungenerously with the Civil Service in their problems.
Before I sit down I should like, however, to make one small criticism which, coming at a time when many new entrants are in prospect, may be of some slight assistance to those in whose hands lie the keeping of the traditions of the Service. I think your Lordships will agree with me that the standards of our foremost houses of commerce and industry are second to none, and that any idea to the contrary in the public service should be severely discouraged. In my six years of working among them I found the Civil Service to be most industrious, clever, not lacking in decision, and of course of unquestioned integrity. I only pray noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place, that even though they seem bent on Bedlam, they do not drag with them the noble body of servants of the State.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, it falls to my happy lot to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on his maiden speech. It gives me particular pleasure to do so because I worked for several years in the same Department as a temporary civil servant. I am sure your Lordships will wish to hear him again and that you feel, as I do, that he has kept silence much too
632
long. The angle from which I wish to approach this Debate is that of personal experience rather than anything which has happened since I left the Civil Service. Having been a civil servant during the war, and having been one twenty years before that, I was very much impressed by the quality of the Civil Service, by the readiness of quite junior officials to take responsibility, but also, I am bound to say, by the delay that seemed sometimes to be impossible to get over when a number of Departments had to be consulted.
The main difficulty seemed to me to exist when decisions had to be taken at a very high level, not necessarily a Ministerial level but a high level amongst permanent officials. The work of the Permanent Secretary to one of the big Departments of State is indeed an enormous load to bear. The Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for instance, has an enormous amount of work to do. He has to attend Cabinet meetings, he is pursued by red boxes when he gets home, he has countless telegrams to read, and he is necessarily the bottleneck through which papers have to reach the Secretary of State. No one without an iron constitution and a wonderful capacity to bear the strain could possibly exist through the years of war as Sir Alexander Cadogan has done. The more one sees of the machinery of Government, the more difficult it is, I think, to devise any method of improving it.
Quite apart from legislation which has come into being since the war, and since the new Government came into power, the number of documents which goes through a Government Department has increased, I should think, four or five fold, compared with 1910 or 1920. A very large proportion of these papers has to go through the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Secretary of State, and there is a great volume which he has to deal with himself. I have often wondered whether one of the possible ways of decreasing delay and helping the work of the Civil Service would be to increase the number of Deputy Under-Secretaries in the hardest worked Government Departments. They could certainly relieve the Permanent Under-Secretary and in many cases they could take decisions and he would not have to be the bottleneck that he is now.

633
I believe that the Treasury would not make difficulties if that were the right solution. One can only speak of things as one finds them and I can only say that in all the years I had dealings with the Treasury they never refused one reasonable request which was put forward in a reasonable way, and I should like to ask the noble Lord if he would consider the possibility of increasing the staff at the top. It is not only at the bottom that help is needed. Papers flow up in a great mass and one of the things that is most difficult for the heads of Departments is to get time to think. They are flooded out by these papers, and by people who are corning in, and wanting decisions on them; they really do not have time to think of the long-term work of the Department and how it can be improved. Anything which can relieve the strain on the Permanent Secretaries seems to me to be well worth pursuing. I am very much interested in the suggestion of the noble Marquess that the permanent heads of offices should meet in conference. That I think would be a most admirable thing if it could be arranged. The difficulty is to find time for them to get away train their current work, but something like a permanent secretaries' conference of the chief Departments would be a most admirable thing if it could be carried out. I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion of the noble Marquess.
4.41 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Marquess for raising this question. It is the kind of topic which your Lordships House should be ideally constituted to discuss, and I feel sure that anything that has been said this afternoon, with one or two exceptions, will receive very careful attention in the proper quarters. I am grateful also to the noble Marquess for not launching out into the kind of cheap criticism of the individual civil servant which is all too apt to be ventilated when there is a discussion of the Civil Service in public. He will agree with me that the civil servant of this country remains the butt of the comedian but the wonder of the world. There is no other country that can produce anything approaching him.
Having said that, I must express a strong objection to the phrase used by the noble Marquess when, speaking care-
634
fully and deliberately, he informed us that he believed the public service of this country was on the threshold of a breakdown. I should describe that, as I believe most of your Lordships on reflection would so describe it, as a reckless and unsubstantiated statement. The noble Marquess certainly made no attempt to substantiate what would be a very grave prediction if it bore any relation to the truth. I hope when he comes to reply he will tell us that should not be taken quite literally and that it was simply his way of expressing concern about the heavy burdens placed on the Service. It would be most unfortunate if it went out from your Lordships' House that there was some considerable opinion to be found here that this country through its Civil Service was on the point of collapse, because the noble Marquess's statement can only lead one to that conclusion.
Before I give a certain amount of information that I think will be of interest to your Lordships, may I try to deal briefly with some of the other points raised? The noble Marquess very properly, and in a very interesting way, suggested the technique of conferences He said he was a great believer in conferences; that by getting people who were running different shows linked together getting those people into the same room, one would make headway. I may be mistaken, but I got the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—whom I also would like to congratulate on a most promising maiden speech for someone whose banns so very recently have been put up—seemed to differ from the noble Marquess on that point, and to be rather frightened by conferences, and discouraged by the thought of more of them. I may have misunderstood him.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I might explain that my point was that there are so many conferences that they can never be attended by the right people, and the result is that decisions cannot emanate from the conferences.
LORD PAKENHAM: Well, there may be a certain amount of truth in that. In that case no doubt the noble Marquess on his side will note carefully the difficulties in the way of his proposal, but let me say quite clearly and definitely that the principle of conference is not only accepted in the public service, but

635
actively practised, as all those who are in very close touch with the public service are aware; it is practised within each Department and between Departments. I do not think anyone will question that.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: On the lines to which I referred—namely, all the heads of all Ministries?
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not think the noble Marquess will press me too far about the precise details of the organization of Whitehall.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Very well.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Marquess says, "Very well," as though I am evading the issue. I think that noble Lords of experience will not expect at thisstage—they can ask for further information if they think it necessary—to know exactly how every Departmental head does his daily business.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Lord, but, really, I did not ask that we should be told how every Department did its daily business. What I suggested was that there should be regular conferences between the heads of all Departments. The noble Lord says there are conferences, but what he will not tell me is whether those are representative of all Government Departments.
LORD PAKENHAM: I can assure the noble Marquess that very close contact is preserved. The contact was never closer than it is today. I would ask the noble Marquess to mark my words rather carefully, because I am choosing them rather carefully. Contact between the heads of all relevant Departments was never closer in our history than it is today, and that I feel is as far as the matter can be taken at this moment. The noble Marquess suggested that we should stop the flow of legislation. He and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, both seemed to feel it would be compatible with the honour of the Government to break their Election pledges. The noble Marquess may not like these Election pledges, and some noble Lords may feel that the country made a wrong choice. But no one surely in this House is going to tell me that the country did not vote for the nationalization of certain industries which are at this moment on their way to
636
being nationalized. No one is going to rise and tell me that the Government have exceeded their Election mandate. If that is conceded, as I think it must be conceded, surely we are placed in a position where those promises have got to be carried out, or else this Government had better clear out.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Over a period of time.
LORD PAKENHAM: Over a period of time. If the Government showed any tendency to daily by the way I feel we should rightly be the subject of very bitter criticism from those who supported us at the Election and from those who did not. Another suggestion made by the noble Marquess was that we should have a series of scrutinizing committees. He mentioned in that connexion the Geddes inquiry after the last war. Well, if I may attempt the noble Marquess's phraseology without his felicity at the moment, I know he has no axe to grind, but I was surprised to learn he has got a Geddes axe to wield! That I feel would be the idiom of the noble Marquess. I do not suppose that a clumsier weapon was ever forged than the Geddes axe, and I feel that the noble Marquess, when he comes to reply, may well think of some slightly happier example, because the principle is one which is obviously capable of very serious consideration.
Before leaving the noble Marquess, who has performed such a service in raising the subject, I would like to suggest to him that he is suffering from one complete misunderstanding; it may be more than one, but at any rate one complete misunderstanding. He seems to be under the impression that the coal industry will be run by civil servants. That is not so. If the noble Marquess instead of burning the midnight oil so late over his epigrams (and I am the last to protest against epigrams in this House, even when delivered against the Civil Service), had read the debate on the nationalization of the coal mines he would have found there stated very clearly by the Minister that the coal mines, when they are nationalized, will not be run by civil servants. More generally, may I make it plain to the House that, in so far as the Government, in carrying out their Election mandate, undertake duties of production and distribution in this country, those tasks will not be directly per formed by civil servants. We are,

637
therefore, under the necessity of building up an industrial service for these purposes, paid at commercial rates. I know the noble Marquess is under a misapprehension, and I am glad to be able to correct him.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am very glad to have the noble Lord's correction, all the more so because it is quite unnecessary. What I said was that I quite realized that in respect of the Coal Board, in clause after clause of the Coal Bill duties were put upon the Minister, and whenever a duty is put upon the Minister it is a duty on the Civil Service.
LORD PAKENHAM: I apologize if I have misunderstood the noble Marquess, but I feel that others besides myself may have gained the same impression. However, if I misunderstood him I apologize to him. May I now come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, whose debut pleased everyone so much? He made two proposals which are rather hard to accept: or reject on the spur of the moment. He suggested that the number of Ministries should be reduced. Of course, it is not possible to say at any one moment we have got the ideal number of Ministries. When the noble Lord comes forward with a concrete example of how to reduce Ministries the Government will be the first to consider the point that he raises, but taken in the large like that I do not think that anybody would simply start work by assuming that we must cut down the number of Ministries.
The noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, who spoke with such immense authority and was so very helpful on this subject, called attention to the tremendous burdens that fall on the chief permanent officials in any Government Department. If you reduced the number of Ministries, the burdens would be increased. I am not saying that is conclusive one way or the other, but both the noble Lords will recognize that one has got to strike a rather delicate balance there. Whilst I am dealing with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, I will certainly convey to those responsible for any change, if a change is needed, the suggestion about increasing the number of Deputy Under-Secretaries. He means, I take it, deputies to the Permanent Secretary, seconds in command who can deputize for the Permanent Secretary.
638
Coming, as it does from someone with the authority of the noble Earl, I am sure that it will be considered with exceptional care. If I may return to the other concrete suggestion by Lord Hawke, he told us that we could speed up business enormously if we could get each Department back under its own roof. I am sure every Department feels the same. It is a housing problem which the Government are only too anxious to solve.
May I come now to a brief statement—too brief a statement, but one that must be made—regarding the future intentions of the Government? I would like to say straight away that we quite agree with those who say that a heavy strain is being placed on the Civil Service at the present time, a heavy strain arising mainly out of the war and from the fact that so many civil servants have been temporarily called away from Government Service, while many who were engaged in Government Service during the war are in process of returning to their peace-time occupations. There is obviously a heavy strain imposed on civil servants, and we are not going to underestimate that, but we do say that the steps which are now being taken—which for the most part were planned by the Coalition Government and announced towards the end of 1944, supplemented by at least one important departure, to which I shall refer later, and which has been largely conceived by the present Government, and speeded up in accordance with the increased responsibilities to which more than one noble Lord has referred—will in our view, prove sufficient to bring that strain to an end at a reasonably early date. That is the gist of what I wish now to place before you. I want to explain the kind of steps that are in contemplation.
We are examining the question of recruitment, because I suppose the questions most in our mind are those of recruitment and promotion and training when we are discussing the quality of the Civil Service and the task it has to perform. When we consider the question of recruitment I should stress the fact that careful plans were drawn up as the result of the report of a representative Committee in 1944 and approved in another place at the end of that year. Without carrying you through all the details, many of which are more relevant

639
when one is considering justice between the various applicants—between the Service men, between the older men and the younger men—I would explain that it is intended to secure recruits from various sources for the Civil Service, four sources in all. First of all, we have the normal competitive examination to which we are all accustomed in peace-time. That will be resumed when the universities are in full swing. I will confine myself in these remarks to the administrative class, because I expect the noble Marquess will agree that that is the class on whom his Motion bears most closely, although, of course, steps are being taken pari passu, to deal with the other classes, the executive, the clerical, and the manipulative classes, and others such as the technical classes. This ordinary competitive examination will, as soon as the universities get going again, be conducted on lines very similar to those which prevailed before the war, but with a certain experimentation in the direction of laying more stress on the interview. I do not say that the old-fashioned examination is going to be scrapped, but an experiment will be made to see whether one can have a much shorter and much more general written examination and select the candidates mainly by interview. That is the main change that will be introduced in the pre-war examination. Of course the candidates for this normal competitive examination are young people now growing to manhood, and we cannot rely on them to shoulder the tasks which have been referred to this afternoon, so that I am looking a little way ahead in mentioning this kind of resumed examination.
Then we have what are called the reconstruction competitions. They are for the vacancies which have accrued in the Service during the war. These are intended for the young men and women who have lost their chance hitherto, owing to the war, of competing in the Civil Service examinations. It is intended that young men and women up to thirty should be allowed to go in for these reconstruction competitions. They will therefore be the main source of recruitment in the period immediately ahead. They have already started; they started at the end of last year, and they will be held twice yearly in the immediate future. You will appreciate that it is
640
desired to do justice to those still in the Fighting Services, many of whom are still overseas, and therefore it is not possible to hold the general reconstruction competition at one fell swoop.
The test will be first of all a qualifying written test, and after that an interview. The qualifying test is supposed to be comparatively easy. One of my best friends who took this examination recently tells me the mathematics at any rate is not such a very easy paper; but then, men of genius are often weak on mathematics, and it may be that he falls into that category. Speaking broadly, from the point of view of the average man, the written test is supposed to be comparatively easy. You go through a most searching interview which takes two or three days. The idea, of course, is to avoid handicapping the candidates, the great majority of whom have been far from their studies during the last six years. I should like to mention that a certain preference is given to ex-Service men in that a certain quota of positions is being reserved for Service candidates. There will also be a small additional reconstruction competition for those who would ordinarily be coming up from the lower grades and competing for positions in the administrative classes. That is the second source, therefore, the reconstruction competition. That will be, numerically speaking, the main source.
Then, in addition, we have the temporary civil servant. As we are all aware, a great many temporary civil servants have exhibited great qualities during the war, and provision is made for a considerable number of these to be retained. If they are under 30, they compete in the ordinary reconstruction competition; but if they are over 30, a special form of examination is arranged for them, which involves an interview if they are of the principal class, while, if they are above the principal class, they are accepted on the strength of recommendations, usually, I understand, without interview, though, if possible, an interview may in some cases be organized for them. It would be thought improper to submit some very senior civil servant, who has risen to the top of a Department, to a testing interview of the kind which one provides for the young applicant.
There is a reference in the Command Paper concerned with these matters to

641
"exceptional merit," and "special qualifications," but I understand that in practice anybody, any temporary civil servant who has proved himself during the war to be up to the standard of the permanent civil servant, will be invited to stay. Of course, it is up to him to say whether he chooses to stay or not. In practice, the Government is anxious to retain in the Civil Service, if the men and women concerned are ready to stay, those who have proved themselves equal to performing the functions of a civil servant during the war.
Finally—and this may be new to some—the present Government has thrown open to competition since November, 1945, fifty positions of the principal level, that is, positions that would carry with them, at the beginning, a salary of some £890. Fifty such positions are being thrown open to competition by advertisement. That is something additional to what was planned under the Coalition Government. While most of these projects are regarded as having been worked out while the Coalition Government was stilt in being, this is an additional step. I will not say very much on the subject of promotion. There is apt to be a feeling in the Civil Service that promotion is very slow, and very hard to secure from one grade to another. I may remind your Lordships that, at the end of 1945, out of 1,200 principals, 600 had come from the lower grades of the Service, from the clerical or executive grades; so the Civil Service is not half so close a corporation as people are apt to imagine. I would also remind you that Sir Horace Wilson had come from the executive grade. Again, we find at the head of the Ministry of Supply a gentleman who, before the war, was an Oxford don; he was a Professor at the outbreak of the war. The same is true, mutalis mutandis, of the Board of Education, where, as you know, the then Permanent Secretary joined the Civil Service at the beginning of the war. We must not believe for a moment that it is impossible for a bright man to make his way up through the Civil Service.
On the subject of training, I would beg you to study at your leisure the Assheton Report, a very important Report published during the war; this was the Report of a Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Ralph Assheton, Finan-
642
cial Secretary to the Treasury. This marks a new departure in the attitude towards training in the Government service. No longer will it be true that the young civil servant is left to find his feet and train himself as best he can. There is now a Director of Training, and each principal department is securing its own departmental directors. The whole system of training is being worked out and co-ordinated, and the young civil servant to-day is receiving advantages which no, civil servant in this country, or I may say in any other country, has hitherto enjoyed.
Finally, on the subject of the organisation of the Civil Service—because I have hitherto been concerned with the individual, and the quality of the Service, and the steps taken to maintain and raise that quality—there have been steps of interest and significance. In the first place the principle of devolution has gained a good deal of ground in recent years. You will remember that, before the war, the principle was already fairly familiar in the Ministry of Labour. There, decisions were taken on what is called the executive level, and not the administrative level, which, though it sounds the same, is considerably higher. Now, we find that regional organizations are already in existence in the case of the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Food, of course, and now, the Ministry of Health. In these regional offices, decisions taken are of considerably more importance than they were before the war where such offices existed. Decisions are now taken in many cases on what is called the administrative, as opposed to the lower, that is, the executive level.
I would add, while on the subject of organization, that, just as we have a new Director of Training in the Treasury to keep an eye on training throughout the Civil Service, and to give advice on training throughout the Service, so we have established during the war a new Director of Organization. We have a Directorate of Organization, and in each great Department there is established, or there is in process of being established, a Departmental Director of Organization.
Therefore we have a Directorate of Organisation established centrally, with Departmental Directors in each principal Department. That gives some idea of

643
the fact that the Government is not asleep. Many of these steps, I repeat, were planned during the period of the Coalition Government. Where that is so they have been speeded up, but they have also been supplemented in one or two ways that I have described.
I would end by asking your Lordships to consider whether in fact there is much ground, whether in fact there is any ground, for criticizing our Civil Service to-day. Do not let us suppose that it is perfect. The Civil Service has been improved throughout the last 150 years or more, ever since Burke's great speech in 1780 or, coming closer, ever since the great reforms of 1855. It has been improved partly by internal self-criticism and partly by such discussions as the noble Marquess has initiated. When I say I am grateful to him for it I am not speaking ironically; I think it is most helpful to have a discussion of this kind. But when all is said, I think it will be agreed that we owe it to the Civil Service, after all they have passed through in the war, to offer them our tribute; when we think of the Service, which is still to-day, as it always was—I venture to say more to-day than ever it was—a source of envy and despair to all foreign students of political institutions, a Service which has discharged unparalleled responsibilities during the war, unostentatiously but with unparalleled success, a Service which need fear comparison today less than ever with any Government service on earth.
LORD AILWYN: Before the noble Lord sits down, and with the noble Marquess's permission, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell me whether there is any lack of candidates coming forward for permanent commissions in His Majesty's Civil Service? I do not quite know whether he mentioned that point I would like to know whether there is a lack of complete sufficiency of British subjects coming forward for permanent commissions in His Majesty's Civil Service.
LORD PAKENHAM: I should say that there was no evidence of any lack at all.
5.14 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, if the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who
644
opened this debate, will forgive me for a moment, there is one point I should like to make which has not been raised in the course of the debate. Before I come to it, however, may I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hawke on his maiden speech which we all listened to with great pleasure? I hope he will often contribute to our debates in this House. Naturally we, on this side, join wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the tribute he has paid to the Civil Service. No country has a Civil Service like ours, and certainly our gratitude to them should be redoubled after what they have done under the appalling strain of this war. If there is any deterioration at all in Whitehall, I should say it is not amongst the civil servants but amongst the Ministers, and that of course reacts upon the civil servants all the time.
I think the noble Lord opposite did less than justice to the noble Marquess when he talked about the effect of nationalization upon the civil servant. Really what does nationalization mean if it does not mean more responsibility for Ministers? And more responsibility for Ministers means more work and increased strain upon the Civil Service. Establishing your boards is not going to make any real difference to the men who really carry the weight in advising the Ministers. I think the noble Marquess was perfectly right on that point, and the noble Lord made no answer at all, if I may say so without disrespect.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, since the noble Lord has said I made no answer, it is necessary for me to attempt to say one word that may appear to be an answer. I evidently did misunderstand the noble Marquess. I withdrew and expressed regret because I had taken him to think that the Civil Service would be called upon to operate the nationalized industries. That did not appear to be the gist of his remarks—indeed he expressly disclaimed any such intention—and that was cleared up. At the same time, it is obvious that some increased responsibilities will fall on the Government service when we attempt to construct a planned economy. Someone has to make the plans at headquarters, and I must not be thought to deny that some increased responsibilities will fall on the

645
Government service in Whitehall What I was concerned with was the larger point which, if I had understood the noble Marquess correctly, would have involved hundreds of thousands of individuals.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am glad the noble Lord has satisfactorily explained that point. What I wished to say a word about was really the question of the training of political Ministers, because it is the quality of their political leaders that very often makes the main difficulties of the Civil Service. I am not making a Party point of this matter at all. I think, as a matter of fact, there has been a deterioration over a long period in one particular way, and I rather think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who has had long experience of Whitehall, will confirm me in this view. I know a great deal of most of the Departments in Whitehall. About a quarter of a century ago, when I was in the Civil Service, I was in Downing Street. I was then out of Whitehall for a long time. When I came back to it I noticed a very great change: that was the magnification of the position of Permanent Under Secretary, and, in many Departments, a great disappearance of any utility in the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
It depends very much on the Cabin Ministers whether they use Parliamentary Under-Secretaries or not. Many of their do not use them at all, and as one watches affairs from day to day in connexion with any Government—with this as with others—one seems to see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has some responsibility in some Departments and not at all in others. That is a matter that, needs to be watched from the point view of the lead that the Civil Service are going to have, and the Civil Service themselves should attend to it. It is in the Under-Secretaryships that Cabinet Ministers are trained, and if a man doe not get responsibilities he will not have the same experience, the same judgment and the same capacity when he rises to the higher rank of Cabinet Minister training of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries does seem vital, and I hope that from now on Cabinet Ministers, Instead of centralizing things largely in themselves, as so many have done for a long time past, will give real opportunities to their Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and
646
see that they carry responsibility for some particular branch or branches of the Department's affairs.
5.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I am particularly glad that I was fortunate enough to dangle the bait in front of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, which he proceeded to swallow and to give us that very admirable maiden speech. The noble Lord who has made the speech from the Government Bench—because I am not going to say "has replied to my Motion"—endeavoured to take me to task for what he called a reckless and unsubstantiated statement.
LORD PAKENHAM: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I have tried, since I have been a member of this House, not to make statements which could be called reckless or unsubstantiated In the course of my speech I put in some detail the facts on which I formed that opinion. It may have been a wrong opinion, but I should not have put it forward if it had not been my opinion, and I do not quite follow why the noble Lord should challenge it as being either reckless or unsubstantiated. He went on to beat breast, to beat the box and to talk about the honour of the Government.
When a Minister talks about the honour of the Government one generally knows he has got nothing else to talk about. That was completely irrelevant. He said we were under the impression that the Government were not going to follow out the plan of nationalization to which they had pledged themselves. He really misunderstood what we were saying. The whole point was that not only had they pledged themselves to carry that out, but they were in fact carrying it out at quite an excessive speed, and without pausing to think of the strain they were putting on civil servants in so doing. That was the whole burden of what we were saying, and we were fobbed off with some expression about the honour of the Government. I am not going to deal again with what I said about the Coal Industry Nationalization Bill. I think it was reasonably clear and it will be in the recollection of most of your Lordships.

647
If my noble friend misunderstood it, he has at least handsomely apologized for it.
Having got to that stage, I proceeded to be greatly encouraged because the noble Lord stated he was going to tell us what the Government were going to do about it. From that moment, he plunged into some interesting but, for this purpose, wholly irrelevant details on the subject of recruitment. The point of this debate really was that in our view this was an urgent and pressing problem, which had arisen in the peculiar circumstances of the moment, which was largely due to the impetuousness with which legislation was being thrust upon this assembly, and one which wanted dealing with now. He started to tell us what arrangements were being made for recruitment. You might just as well tell a general in the middle of a battle that the birth rate is going up and that he will get more recruits in 20 years' time!
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask the noble Marquess whether he really regards it as quite irrelevant to his Motion to describe the steps which are being taken by the Government to persuade temporary civil servants who have succeeded during the war to remain in the civil service, and to advertise for 50 new Principals? Are those steps really irrelevant?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is quite a different point to the one with which I was dealing, and the noble Lord surely knows it. What I was dealing with was the preliminary dissertation to which he treated us on the subject of the new methods of recruitment.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am very sorry to break in again, but I must point out that the topics to which I alluded in my intervention just now come under the heading of recruitment. They are, in fact, a considerable part of the plan for recruitment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Are these the gentlemen who are being put through these examinations, and who are being given the third degree over three days in the searching viva voce examinations to which the noble Lord referred? As far as the immediate present goes, which is so far as the importance of this
648
Motion goes, except in the last few words of his speech the noble Lord, I think, told us nothing that the Government were going to do to take off the strain, the existence of which he freely admitted, from the Civil Service. I must, say it seemed to me a singularly disappointing reply. It was nothing pertinent to my Motion to conclude with a panegyric of the Civil Service—well deserved and well received. I had, I thought, made it plain at the outset that I was making no attack upon individuals, but merely pointing out difficulties in the system as it exists at the moment. With the situation created by those difficulties the noble Lord in his reply made no solid attempts to deal in any way. I think the reply on behalf of the Government, having admitted the overstrain and having said they were going to tell your Lordships what measures they were taking to remedy that overstrain, can only be regarded as wholly unsatisfactory. This is a Motion which it would not be suitable to divide upon, and therefore I can only ask leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LEGAL AID FOR POOR PERSONS.
5.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the Report of the Committee on Legal Aid and Legal Advice for Poor Persons which was presented to Parliament in May last; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps to implement the Committee's recommendations.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to put the question to His Majesty's Government which is on the Paper. My question has perhaps had rather an unfortunate history since I put it down some time ago. Several times it was on the point of coming on, but for one reason or another it seemed better to postpone it. I make no complaint because I have now actually got an opportunity, at half past five, of putting this matter to the Government. I am greatly obliged to your Lordships who are present for your attendance, because this is a very important question and one which, I trust, will receive much consideration from Parliament as well as

649
widespread attention in the newspapers and among the public. Laymen sometimes suspect a question which has a legal twang about it, but there is nothing narrow or technical about this.
If members of our community are to share equally in the value of the institutions of this country, and if they are, as George III, I think, said, to glory in the name of Britain, then the question of securing legal aid and advice for those who cannot afford to pay professional fees is one of enormous consequence. It is a wicked slander to say there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Our system of open Courts and incorruptible Judges exists to protect all, rich and poor, who are wronged, and to vindicate those who have rights. That is not the point at all; the point is that many of our poorer citizens do not always get the necessary legal aid and advice to vindicate their rights or to explain where they are wrong. Both sides of the matter have to be considered. There may be just as many people who are under the delusion that they are being wronged, when they are not, as there are people who think they are being denied their rights, when they are.
We have this unanimous Report of Lord Rushcliffe's Committee. I am very glad to see him here. It was a very representative Committee (in the appointing of which I had the honour to take part) which devoted itself to this inquiry with the greatest diligence and skill. Here is the document which that Committee produced. It is a document of the highest possible value. It was produced in May last, and I lost no time in considering its recommendations and its arguments. I was hoping, if the then Government continued, to produce proposals based upon it. I feel sure, without having any knowledge at the moment, that whatever Government may be in power will wish, if they can, to take full advantage of the recommendations in this Report.
The Report recognizes the extent and the value of the legal aid and advice that is already available. Just as the noble Lord opposite has recorded our gratitude to the Civil Service, so we might record the fact that there is a vast amount of good work being done already to provide the poor with legal aid and advice.
The Report gives a detailed account of the work of citizens' advice bureaux and
650
the poor man's lawyers. There are quite a number of us who are old in the law now, who, in our younger days, did what little service we could as poor man's lawyers. In my own case, it was done at Toynbee Hall in the East End. That is a system which has been carried on at many centres for many years, and I do not doubt that it has done a great deal to help people in need to secure justice.
Few people realize how those who are immersed in the professional practice of the law give their voluntary and unpaid help to their fellow-citizens in these and other ways. But what we have got by voluntary means is really not enough, and, apart from that, the problem is one of the greatest urgency. For example, the problem of how to deal with "poor person" cases in divorce is a very urgent problem indeed. We may deplore that there should be so many divorce cases, but we must see that people who are entitled to bring such suits are given reasonable assistance to bring them, and, I hope, to bring them with reasonable promptitude. During the war the former Government helped to institute a special system of help and advice for men and women in the Forces who became involved in matrimonial difficulties. The system worked, in many respects, exceedingly well.
Not only was it doing what was wholly right for individuals, but I have not the least doubt—and I know that this is the view held by authorities in the Fighting Forces—that it was a contribution to morale, because no man can fight his best if he has in his pocket a letter from his wife telling him of that sort of trouble at home, and feels that he has not the slightest means of investigating it or of dealing with it; feels, in fact, that he does not know what to do at all. Those engaged in operating the system during the war worked very hard, and their efforts were attended with a great deal of success.
But the numbers of divorce cases now are threatening to swamp the field of existing facilities altogether. I am quite convinced that this Committee under Lord Rushcliffe's chairmanship are quite right when they say that there must be an organized scheme of legal aid covering the whole country under proper conditions, in which the State should bear the cost. For, in spite of the valuable work that has been done by voluntary

651
organizations giving legal advice in many large towns, and in some small towns too, the whole country is not covered. There are areas in which this facility does not, in fact, exist, and, similarly, the work of the poor man's lawyers—all of course voluntarily organized—admirable as it is, cannot reach, and does not reach, the rural areas. Again, the conditions as they exist at present which must be fulfilled, before you get aid in litigation, so far as aid is provided by the State, are too stiff to cover what is needed.
Your Lordships appreciate, I am sure, that there are two halves to this problem. One question is: How shall you get good advice to the poor citizen who perhaps is served with a writ or with a demand with which he does not know how to deal? The other question is: How is he to be helped if a matter actually comes into Court? There are these two things to be considered. The Rushcliffe Committee, in this document, recommend that England and Wales should be divided into areas of convenient size for administrative purposes, each area covering that of a group of provincial law societies, and that the working of the scheme in each area, both for advice and for help in litigation, should be entrusted to an Area Committee and Local Legal Aid Committees.
That is the framework of the scheme. They go on to say—and I wish to call attention to this because it is confirmed from other quarters—that it is essential that any scheme of this sort that is evolved should be administered by the lawyers; not by the State or by the local authorities. This is not a case where the noble Lord sitting opposite will be called upon to provide additional civil servants to run the scheme. You cannot run a scheme for legal aid, whether it is simply a matter of giving advice or for the purpose of helping in litigation, unless you have a good scheme and it is really administered by the lawyers. It cannot be done by the State or by the local authorities. I have the more confidence in saying so when facing the present Government, because I observe that among the witnesses called before the Rushcliffe Committee were a number of members of the Labour Party including Mr. Silkin, and that the view expressed by the Labour Party representatives to the Committee was exactly what I have said—that the
652
scheme must be run under those conditions which I have just outlined. I think, my Lords, that I need not say much more. I hope that others will find time to say a little on this subject.
To put the scheme in its true setting, you have to compare, in your mind, legal aid and advice with medical aid and advice. There are very serious differences, but it is well to compare them for a moment. It has long been realized that citizens who need medical help, but who cannot pay professional fees, should be aided by a health service. Now, to apply that idea systematically in the realm of the law, is very much more difficult. Amongst other reasons, there is this. Some people persist in thinking that they are being wronged, or that the Courts are unjust, when, in fact, they have experienced the due application of the law of the country which Parliament controls, and when, if any remedy is needed, the remedy is Parliamentary and not the remedy of appealing to the Court.
There are, no doubt, a certain number of malades imaginaires in this world, but there are not nearly so many as there are citizens who believe that an appeal to the principles of equity would, within the law, at once secure them their rights. That is a difficulty. There is not really, as some people suppose, a difficulty from the professional point of view. I claim to know the profession pretty well by this time, and I am perfectly convinced that if a system such as that which the Rushcliffe Committee recommend, were instituted, not only would there be no objection from the professional point of view, but there would be widespread and general satisfaction. Of course, the people who help have got to be reasonably paid. But there is no question at all about the position from the point of view of the profession of the Bar. Everybody wants to see the poor man and the poor woman helped in this matter in the best possible way.
I therefore commend this Report to the House with this simple reflection, that whatever the difficulties may be in the way of poverty, no citizen should fail to get the legal aid or advice which is so necessary to establish his or her full rights. I hold—have long held—that this is an essential reform in a true democracy and one in which this country has an

653
opportunity of setting a lead to the world. I have not moved for Papers but I address my question to His Majesty's Government and I am sure that it will be sympathetically received.
5.41 p.m.
Loan RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, as I was chairman of this Committee to which Lord Simon has referred, I should like to make one or two observations. I have never thought it part of the duty of a chairman of a committee to commend and broadcast the merits of the recommendations which his committee may make. The Report is, of course, made to the appropriate member of the Government, in this case the Lord Chancellor, and it is for him, no doubt after consultation with his colleagues, to decide which of the recommendations are meritorious and those upon which he does not agree. None the less, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for what he has said and his words of warm commendation for the issue of the Report. I should like to make one or two general observations. At a very early stage in our consideration of this matter we came to the conclusion that a new approach to the whole question of legal assistance was overdue and we thought that the existing facilities for legal assistance were inadequate for present needs. The Report sets out, of course, in our recommendations how we think these facilities can be provided.
I was very glad to hear what Viscount Simon said when he paid a very well deserved tribute to the enormous amount of gratuitous work for poor people, work done without any monetary reward at all, by both branches of the legal profession for years past. That work has been done not only in many cases at great inconvenience to themselves but it has often involved very great pecuniary loss. They do indeed deserve the gratitude of the whole community for what they have done for so long. But this must be remembered, that the enormous increase of legislation, the immense number of new regulations having legislative effect with which we are now confronted, goes side by side with the fact that the number of persons who need this assistance has very greatly increased.
With regard to the Committee I will say this, that I think it was an extremely
654
representative committee. Without going through the whole list, it contained two very distinguished Judges of the High Court, two ladies who were most helpful in our deliberations and who had great experience of magisterial work, two solicitors who had special experience and special knowledge of the matters which we had to consider, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Matthew, and others who were of the greatest help and assistance to us in the work which we had to do. It' included two members of your Lordships' House, Viscount Southwood and Lord Schuster, and two members of the House of Commons—one a member of the Labour Party and the other a member of the Conservative Party. From the beginning, we were all impressed not merely by the importance of the problems which we had to consider but also by their urgency. We felt, as Lord Simon has told us that he has felt, that this matter was not only important but extremely urgent.
We began examining witnesses in September, 1944, we held forty-eight sittings and we examined fifty witnesses in addition to a very large quantity of memoranda. We finished our Report the following February and it was in the printer's hands, I think, in March and was laid in May. So from start to finish we only took six months from the beginning of the examination of witnesses up to the time of the laying of the Report. What gave me particular satisfaction, and I think it added very greatly to the value of the Report, was that it was unanimous. So far from there being any minority report, there was no reservation of any sort or kind by any member of the Committee. The Report was completely and absolutely unanimous.
There is only one further thing I should like to say. I saw the other day with interest and satisfaction a memorandum which has been issued by the Home Secretary for every Petty Sessional Division, to Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and to Recorders, in which he expresses the hope that such of our recommendations as do not require legislation and are appropriate to their respective courts should be carried into effect forthwith. At any rate that is a very great step in advance. Beyond expressing the hope that we shall hear

655
from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack what are the views of the Government on the Report, which we shall listen to with the greatest interest, I have nothing further to add.
5.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, it is often said that lawyers differ perhaps as often as doctors, but it so happens that this is a topic on which lawyers have been busily engaged for nearly half a century. They are at one in feeling that justice is not being properly administered if poor people are unable to ascertain their legal rights or having ascertained them are unable to enforce them in courts of law. There have been four Lord Chancellors in succession before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack who have done something for the benefit of these people. I myself, if I may mention it, appointed a Committee which has been superseded by the Rushcliffe Committee, in April 1939, to investigate substantially a similar question to that which it fell to the lot of the recent Committee to report upon. It was under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Hodson and it had started its proceedings when the war came and it became useless to go on with that Committee since a number of the members had disappeared in various ways. Lord Rushcliffe's Committee has presented the admirable Report of which we have all heard and which a good many lawyers in the country have very carefully considered. So far as I know it has unanimous approval. It takes some wide and bold steps which are probably right and I venture to think that the reproach that the poor man cannot get justice in this country will be substantially removed if the recommendations of the Committee are carried into effect. I hope that they will be carried into effect as soon as possible. There is very little for me to say after what has been said by my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon. There is, however, one thing I should like to add to what he said which I venture to think the draughtsmen of the measure should very carefully consider in order that we should not go wrong and by removing one injustice, create another.
Those who read the Report know there are two matters which are really quite separate and which present different problems. Firstly, there is the question of what in the report is called "legal aid." Secondly, there is the question of
656
"legal advice." By "legal aid" is meant assistance in conducting or defending proceedings in the Courts in all the various ways in which that can be done. "Legal advice" of course is different because it means advice on legal matters, drafting documents and so on, enabling poor people to understand what their legal rights are. But with regard to "legal aid"—mainly assistance in the Courts—I venture to think that there is something which may be implied somewhere in the Report, but is not exactly stated, and it is this. A person who needs assistance in litigation has, under Section 141 of the Report, to apply for a certificate, an before a certificate is granted he must show that he has a prima facie case, and that he is in that section of the community for which legal aid is intended.
What I want to have very carefully considered is this, that there is a difference between those two matters, because after all the giving of assistance to a litigant—and I will take for the purposes of brevity the case where it is merely a question of bringing an action—may have this result, that the case may turn out, when it comes on, to be quite ill-founded either in fact or in law and may be dismissed. But then we have got to remember the position of the unfortunate defendant in that action. He is not going to get anything out of the poor person who has been assisted, and is left to bear his own costs which may in some cases practically cripple him in the future. There are all sorts of difficult cases that one can conceive, such as right-of-way cases, libel, slander, and all sorts of cases of tort in which it may be very difficult for the person who is to advise whether legal aid should be given to know whether an action is likely to succeed. In fact it may be quite impossible, because the cases may often depend upon matters of fact. I strongly urge upon the Government, when they do find time to implement the suggestions of this Report, to consider very carefully the instructions that should be given to the people whose duty it will be to grant a certificate in cases where the action may be of a very expensive character, such as a High Court action which may possibly come up to this House for decision, and the defendant will have prima facie almost as good a defence as the applicant for assistance has a prima facie case for bringing the action.

657
I venture to think that it should only be in cases where there is good reason to suppose that the action will succeed that such a certificate should be given. That, I think, is a matter of considerable importance to the public, because I am very anxious that people should not be going about the country saying that they have been sued by somebody who turns out to have no case at all, and they themselves have been almost ruined in the course of the proceedings. I would only add my little word to the tribute that has been paid to the numerous barristers and solicitors all over the country who have been helping poor people with legal advice and also with legal assistance. I would take one sentence from the report of the Committee who reported in 1928 on this subject, which refers to
"…the inestimable value which has often been afforded by the barristers and solicitors engaged in giving them legal advice"—
and concluding with these words:
"We would here express our admiration for the way in which these members of the profession devote so many evenings to assisting those who might otherwise have to go without advice."
I think everybody who knows the facts will think that tribute is well deserved. I hope the words which have fallen from Viscount Simon and from my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe will help the Government to give a very sympathetic reception to the Report of the Committee of which Lord Rushcliffe has been the Chairman.
5.55 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I apologize to the House for taking up yet more time on one afternoon, but it is not my fault that this Motion ultimately came to fruition on the same day as one standing in my own name. It does, however, happen to be a matter in which, from my own career at the Bar, I have always had a deep personal interest, and, in looking back on those years, one can perhaps say now that one of the most satisfactory of one's recollections is that there were times when one was able oneself to give help of this kind. It is well-known as a principle that every man is equal before the law, but he has got to get before the law before he can attain that equality, and in the past it has perhaps been a path more beset with—difficulties for the man of very limited means
658
than it should have been, or that any of us wanted to see.
Great credit is due to voluntary societies like the Bentham Society and others for the work they have done, but it is not right, and it is not worthy of our legal system, that people with rights to enforce or with claims to resist should be dependent upon what is, after all, charity in order to have those matters resolved and therefore I welcome most warmly the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Report. In quite a different sphere I have had some opportunity in the past six years of seeing how much it meant for the soldier, who after all in most cases is only a citizen in unfamiliar dress, to have set up those special bureaux for advice. All of us knew what was called the problem of the anxious soldier, the man with something upon his mind, generally some domestic trouble, which meant that he was not 'giving his full attention to his duties, and was proving a much less satisfactory soldier than he might have been. The cause was generally traced to some private anxiety of this kind, and there were innumerable cases in which the Services, with their special officers to investigate these cases, were effective in relieving him from those anxieties and reconstituting him into an excellent soldier. It must be a satisfaction to everybody to think that that system on an enlarged and officially-recognized scale has become part of our legal system.
I would only like, if I may, to add one word to what was said by the noble and learned Viscount who just spoke on the provisions of paragraph 141, that the certificate can only be given on proof of a prima facie case, and to suggest, as he did, that that is really insufficient to prevent the risk of speculative action, and it might have been worth considering if, instead of a prima facie case, he had to make out on the certificate that he had a reasonable prospect of success; This Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, said, was a very large measure. The Government have now sat on it for some months, and perhaps it may soon hatch out into something useful.
6.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWIT): My Lords, there has been a very remarkable unanimity in our thoughts about this matter, and I should like to start off, if I may, by paying a

659
tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, who presided over this Committee. It is by no means the first matter about which the country as a whole has to thank that noble Lord. He has shown himself to be a most valuable public servant in these matters, and, although he was supported in this case by, I think I may say, an exceptionally powerful and well-balanced Committee, yet I have very little doubt that the unanimity of that Committee and the strength of this Report are in no small measure due to the care and the ability of the noble Lord himself.
Now, my Lords, having said that much, I say at once that I have naturally for many months past read this Report and looked at it and come to the conclusion that it was good, not good merely in the sense of the curate's egg—good bits in it, but good as a whole; and I went to my colleagues in the Government—because it was realized that there was a considerable amount of money involved in his, unfortunately—and put the Report to them. Of course, before I can get final approval to details, I must have the Report worked out by the Law Society, because Lord Rushcliffe's Committee recommends that that should be our first step—to put it up to the Law Society to work out a detailed scheme in order that estimates and so on might be prepared. That was done by my predecessor, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. He referred the matter to the Law Society, and though I have been pressing the Law Society—and I realize how many claims they have on their time—I have not yet received their report, but I am very hopeful that I shall receive it within the next few weeks. In the meantime, what I have done is to submit this matter to my colleagues, and I have to tell your Lordships that I have obtained their approval to the main points in this scheme.
The main points really are these. At the beginning of the Conclusions and Recommendations, after a most interesting survey of the previous history, it is said, in paragraph 124:
"The Committee has been greatly impressed by the evidence submitted pointing to the need for a new approach to the whole question of legal assistance."
That statement we accept; we must have a new approach. Then in the next paragraph but one they say:
660
"It follows that a service which was at best somewhat patchy has become totally inadequate and that this condition will become worse."
There again we agree; we entirely agree. I have been interested to hear to-day the observations of my two predecessors on the Woolsack. I think myself that one must not press the analogy with the medical profession too far, and I think that one must not press it too far for this reason: that, whereas in the case of the doctor, there is generally speaking no other interest to be served than that of looking after a particular patient and trying to make him survive, one has to remember that in the law, course, in litigation, one has two parties; and therefore the point which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, made is one which has been very present to my mind. I would point out to him, and to the noble Marquess who spoke immediately before me, that if they turn to page 33, at the very last line of the Report, they will see that one of the functions of the Local Committee is to be "to decide whether the applicant has reasonable grounds for being represented." If that is to be translated as "a reasonable prospect of success," or that he is "likely to succeed," or whatever the phrase may be, to that I am quite agreeable, and I think that was what Lord Rushcliffe's Report really meant. Therefore it comes to this, my Lords: Subject, as I have said, to the fact that I have not yet had the detailed scheme and estimates (as soon as I get it I shall press forward with this matter), we accept that there should be a wide extension of legal assistance both by way of advice and also by way of legal aid in civil litigation; we accept the fact that it is inevitable that barristers and solictors undertaking the work should receive some reasonable remuneration; and we accept the view stated in the Report that the legal aid scheme should be administered by the legal profession, and not by the State, nor by local authorities. As the noble and learned Viscount pointed out, that was the effect of the report put in by the Labour Party, and in regard to that matter, there has been complete unanimity throughout. My Lords, we accept that.
With regard to legal aid in the criminal and quasi-criminal cases, we agree that the overriding consideration should be

661
whether it appears desirable, in the interests of justice, to grant that aid, and that any doubt should be resolved in favour of the applicant. It is the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, pointed out, that the Home Secretary has already circularized the Courts pointing out that they should, so far as they can under the existing law, apply that principle at the present time without waiting for legislation.
When I come to legal aid in civil courts, it is a complex question, and it is obviously the fact that working out the scheme will take much detailed preparation and it will involve, I am sorry to say—your Lordships must face up to it—very large sums of money, and will involve complicated legislation. I hope the noble Marquess will forgive us for adding to the spate, as he puts it, of legislation. Perhaps his objection to legislation is rather to legislation which he does not like, and not to legislation as such. The cost is not merely the cost of administering the scheme, but of course it is the cost of bringing all these cases. No one can do any more than form what I may call an instructed guess as to what that cost will be, but it undoubtedly will be very heavy.
Now, my Lords, that is the position. As soon as I get this detailed report, which I hope to get in the course of the next few weeks, I shall take it up on a more exact basis than I have been able to do heretofore. I have no reason to think that I shall not obtain the support of all my colleagues, but it is inevitable that I shall receive not the criticism but the close attention of the Treasury, and it is right that I should have that by reason of the fact that very large sums of money are here involved. When I have overcome any difficulty there may be, I shall do all I can to press this matter in season and out of season so that I may have my legislation, and put it through as soon as possible. There are, however, difficulties both by reason of the fact that we have a very full programme of legislation, and by reason of the fact that a very considerable staff would be required to run this scheme.
I do not pretend that I think it possible to do this in the course of the next six months. But I am hopeful that, without any undue delay, we shall be able to
662
introduce the scheme, and remove what I say quite frankly has been, in my view, rather a blemish on our legal system in the days gone by. It was easy to say that the Courts were open, but the Courts were open rather in the sense that the Ritz Hotel was open—open to the man who had enough money in his pocket to enter. We must all agree that it is eminently desirable that we should make it plain that the mere fact that a man does not possess financial resources should not deprive him of obtaining justice and a hearing in the King's Courts. Therefore, my Lords, I am able to tell you—and I hope it will be satisfactory to you—that we accept this Report in its broad outline, and we shall do our best to have it translated into the law of the land without any great delay.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. Your Lordships will probably feel that this has been a useful debate and we all of us are deeply grateful to the Lord Chancellor—and I think we are all of one mind on this matter—for the reply which he has been able to give. I agree with him entirely that the analogy between law and medicine cannot be very strictly pressed. It is true that one man's food may be another man's poison; but when it comes to prescribing for some illness, there is not any competing party who wants him to get worse; and that may be the situation when you have litigation between two parties in the Courts. There was one observation of the Lord Chancellor's which I rather deprecate because it seems to me to be such an exaggeration. I would not like it to go forth from the head of the Law that at present the opportunity of going to Court is like the opportunity of staying at the Ritz Hotel. It is not at all. The County Courts dispose of many claims by very poor people. The main difficulty is that so many people who are threatened with proceedings, or are told by someone that they have got to do this or they will get a writ, simply do not know what to do. It does seem to me most important that they should have better information at that stage. So far it is rather like the advice of a good doctor, but when it comes to litigation I do think the analogy rather fails. Even so, we have got a system of actions in forma pauperis.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that applies to the County Court. The trouble arises regarding quite small sums which have to be paid into the Court.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am not disputing the proposition at all, except to say that I do not want the public to imagine that law is a luxury for the rich only. I may say I am very happy indeed to agree with, and am grateful to the Lord Chancellor. Recently the expression "a prima facie case" was used. The Titchborne claimant, I suppose, had at one stage a prima facie case. At least his alleged mother thought so. But it would undoubtedly involve the other side in a very great deal if he were assisted to start proceedings which were not in the least justified nor, on examination, likely to result in final success. Therefore, I wish to thank the Lord Chancellor most sincerely for his very friendly and encouraging answer.
In conclusion, I would venture just to make one suggestion; perhaps I may even put it in the form of a respectful question. It seems to me we have caught him in this debate some two or three weeks before he is fully charged with the material to answer. That is a piece of mistiming, but I hope I may take it that in a short time—perhaps when he gives me notice privately—this matter may be raised again, in order that we may have more Precise assertion. He cannot answer to-day because he is waiting for information from the Law Society which I hope they will soon provide. I am quite satisfied that it is the intention of the Government to undertake to carry through this matter on the lines he has indicated; it is a very great satisfaction to all of us that that should be so.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Wednesday last on the subject of Consolidation Bills as desired by this House.