Lords Sitting of 14 May 1946

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Charnwood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROYAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, ROYAL WEST MINSTER OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, AND CENTRAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, (AMALGAMATION, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SHOREHAM AND LANCING BEACHES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT)/ CORPORATION BILL— [AMENDED].
Read 3a (with the Amendments), and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)/ (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly;
(The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair).
Clause 1:
Repeal of 17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 22 and restoration of law in force before that Act.
1. The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1927") is hereby repealed, and, subject to the transitional provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act, every enactment and rule of law amended or otherwise affected by that Act shall, as from the commencement of this Act, have effect as if the Act of 1927 had not been passed.
2.35 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after "is," to insert "with the exception of Section four thereof and the First and Second Schedules thereto." The noble Lord said: I propose to put the arguments on the merits of this Amendment very shortly. I want to put the case in a few words for contracting in, and against contracting out. I want to say very briefly that, in my humble opinion, the practice of contracting out is unfair, is undemocratic, and is reactionary, and that will show why I am asking your Lordships to vote for and pass this Amendment. I submit that it is not right that a political party should benefit from the inertia of a mass of people, many of whom will, admittedly, have no strong views on Party political questions one way or the other, many of whom may be quite undecided as to which way they would vote if and when the time comes for them to vote.
In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said this:
"The difference between contracting in and contracting out is that you get the benefit of the inertia of those people who will not take the trouble to fill up a form."
I disapprove of a political Party getting that benefit. It lays that political Party open to the suspicion—I do not put it any higher than that—that the Bill has been introduced in order to augment Party funds. I am not making any assertion on that point. But there must be

151
that suspicion in the minds of a large number of people in this country. I want to point out that I am not myself saying this in any Party spirit.
It may be asked why I have not taken up this position with regard to other Bills which the Government have introduced into your Lordships' House. The answer is that, broadly speaking, and subject to exceptions, I have not been against those Bills, and that is why I have not taken up this position before. I hope that it will not be thought that I am in any way what is called a "diehard." I consider that this Bill exceptionally is a bad Bill, and that this Amendment ought to be passed to make it a less bad Bill than it is, and it is for those reasons that I venture to intervene this afternoon. Nor am I against trade unions. I am not altogether in favour of all the machinery under which they are governed, but I, for my part, would like to see conditions created under which trade unions should have a compulsory membership, under which it should be lawful for workers to be compelled to join a union as a condition of their employment. But how can you possibly pass any such legislation when you have contracting out, as it is proposed to have, after this Bill is passed? Surely, it would be a condition precedent for such legislation that contracting in should be restored and that the funds of a trade union should not automatically be put to the advantage of any political Party.
I think that that will be a sufficient argument on the merits of this Amendment, and I say that because I know quite well that I shall not succeed in changing the mind of any member of His Majesty's Government here this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that he would have the Bill and the whole Bill, and I am not so optimistic as to assume that I shall change the minds of any of its supporters. As to the opponents of the Bill—and there are many in your Lordships' House—I need not say any thing more to reinforce their opinions about this Bill. On the merits, therefore, I have said enough. But I have this much more to say: that I am asking your Lordships to vote for this Amendment and I must put forward some reasons why I make that request. I am asking your Lordships to vote for the principle of contracting in and not to abstain from voting.
This Amendment is word for word in the same terms as an Amendment put down by the Liberal Party in another place and pressed to a Division, and I am sufficiently optimistic to assume—or at least I was—that the Liberals in your Lordships' House would rise as one man to support their colleagues in another place. It is because I have apprehensions about it that I must mention this. I suppose that the reason for the difference is that in your Lordships' House there is a serious danger that if they divided on this Amendment they might win. This position, under which one must not have a Division unless one is sure of losing, is not, in my humble opinion, a healthy situation. It is creating a Gilbertian position under which, to quote the words, if I may, of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel:
"We have this strange paradox: that we are a Second Chamber which has become impotent through possessing too much power.—
In saying that I do not like this situation, may I be allowed to add that I represent this afternoon no political Party and no group of members or group of persons at all. Rightly or wrongly, I am doing this upon my own initiative and I do not want anybody else to be implicated against his will. I seek support, but I do not want to drag in anybody who is not willing to give me his support, and I can assure your Lordships that I am not doing it for publicity or notoriety; I am doing it because I think it is right.
I have a very simple proposition to put before your Lordships and it is this: that it is the duty of every member of every legislative body or assembly to vote for a Motion if he thinks it is right and against it if he thinks it is wrong, and to abstain from voting if, and only if, he has no opinion as to the merits of it. That is what I consider the duty of a democratic organization or assembly. The country has the House of Lords which it deserves. It chooses, through its elected representatives in another place, to retain the principle of a second Chamber which is largely manned by the hereditary element. I am not saying that that is wrong, but I am saying that if it so chooses it must accept the consequences of that choice whatever those consequences may be, and I am perfectly aware of the full force of the possible consequences. Until the

153
country chooses to effect a reform, I submit that the functions of your Lordships' House should be allowed to continue as they were intended to continue and, so far as I know, still are intended to continue, and that therefore the members of your Lordships' House should vote upon the merits of the question irrespective of the consequences and not in accordance with popular clamour.
I apprehend that it may possibly be said, or at any rate thought, that your Lordships must pass this Bill and must reject this Amendment because there was at the last General Election a mandate for this Bill. To clear the air, let me admit at once that I think there was a mandate for this Bill. But since when has it been part of the Constitution that the House of Lords must pass a Bill for which there is a popular mandate, or must reject legislation if it goes against the popular mandate? Had the House a mandate for passing the 1927 Act? I was not aware of it, and I am still not aware that such a mandate is necessary. If it is, if there has been a change in the Constitution, may we be told the authority for that change? I ask this with the deepest respect: Is this House really merely an assembly for dotting the i's and crossing the t's and dropping the h's out of Acts of Parliament, or is it something more? Again I say, if a change has been made in the Constitution, let us be told when it was made and what it amounts to.
Obviously no change will be made in the structure of your Lordships' House by the present Government so long as the House passes into law every Bill which the Government introduces. One could not expect it. And may I be allowed to say, at this stage, that before the war I had the greatest respect and the greatest sympathy for the small group of members who formed the Labour Opposition in your Lordships' House. I still have the greatest respect for them, but I have not the same sympathy for them. They do not require the sympathy now, because they can pass through your Lordships' House anything they want to. I hope that the position will be clarified so that we may know whether that is really so. I understand it to be the case that since the last General Election there has been only one Division in your Lordships' House. Again I say I do not think that that is a position with which we ought to be satisfied. I do not
154
think it is a democratic way of governing the country, and I must be allowed personally to express my disapproval and disquiet at this position.
I have asked myself upon many occasions during the past few days whether I should be really right in tabling this Amendment and pressing it to a Division if I could find a Teller to support me—and I frankly confess that up to the moment I cannot do that. The answer, I think, is that it is right. I am doing this because I feel that I, like every other member of your Lordships' House, have a certain responsibility in this matter. We have a responsibility which we cannot avoid by staying away or by sitting in the House and saying nothing. If I go to the other end of the earth and bury myself I am still responsible for the passage into law of this Act and every other Act that is passed, and for the rejection of this Amendment if it is rejected. Your Lordships have an office—you do not need to be told that really. I believe it is the only office in the world which cannot be abdicated or resigned. As we have seen in the papers during the last day or two, even monarchs can abdicate, but not your Lordships. We cannot give up this responsibility however much we desire to do so, and even the humblest member of the House must be allowed to share this responsibility and to feel it, and to feel the difficulty about abdicating it.
I can only add that in moving this Amendment I have no ulterior motive. There is no subtlety about it. I do not wish in any way at all to bring this House into disrepute in the country or elsewhere. I feel uneasy and disturbed about the present situation and I genuinely desire to rectify it. I feel that it is time some of these things were said by somebody. I regret that no one else has got up to say them and that apparently no one else shares this view, but I still feel, rightly or wrongly, that they should be said, and I still hope that I shall receive some support. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1 line 6, after ("is") insert ("with the exception of section four thereof and the First and Second Schedules thereto")—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would like, if I may, immediately to address a word

155
or two to your Lordships on this Amendment. While very diverse views on the merits of this Bill were expressed in the two days debate on its Second Reading, I think there was practical unanimity in all quarters of the House on what was the right and constitutional attitude which this House should adopt towards it. Anyone who has listened to the noble Lord who has just spoken will appreciate the sincerity which has impelled him to speak, but at the same time I think everyone who has considered his Amendment and, still more, anyone who has heard his speech, will agree that this is an Amendment which goes to the whole structure of the Bill and which therefore, as indeed the noble Lord himself has said, raises the whole constitutional position with regard to it. However ill-advised many of us may consider this measure (and I made no concealment, nor did anyone else speaking from this Bench, that I thought this was a bad Bill) yet as my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon said in speaking immediately after the Lord Chancellor, the Government can fairly contend that they have constantly advocated the repeal of the 1927 Act, and, having been returned to power after an Election in which this was indeed an issue, have something in the nature of a mandate to pass the Bill.
In moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, did not in any way challenge that; indeed he said in terms "I admit that the Government have got a perfectly clear mandate from the country to propose this Bill to Parliament." He then went on to express a view of the functions of a second Chamber which I think few members in any quarter of the House could accept. Although we have no written constitution, I will say that not only is it not a wise view to express of the functions of a second Chamber in this century, but it is certainly not the constitutional view to take of the functions of this Chamber.
The fact that there is a mandate for this Bill does not relieve this House, as was well said on the Second Reading, of its right and its duty to debate the Bill thoroughly. Indeed the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, himself said "I should like to join the noble Viscount who has just spoken" that was myself—" in his tribute to the value and character of this debate. I agree with him
156
that it is fully worthy of the traditions that this House has established and maintained". If I may say so with respect, I think that in the two days' debate on the Second Reading your Lordships discharged what was your constitutional right and duty in an exemplary manner, but I submit to your Lordships that it is equally clear—indeed it follows from the views expressed in the earlier debate, even by the Bill's sternest critics—that we should be exceeding our proper constitutional functions if we amended this Bill in a manner which struck at its fundamental provisions. I think that by its history, its structure and its provisions this Bill necessarily stands or falls as a whole.
Perhaps I may be permitted to repeat what I said on the Second Reading, because I know that in what I said then I was expressing the view of everybody on these Benches and, I think, the view held very generally in the House.
"I think the Government have got authority to do this thing if they think it right to take the responsibility for doing it. I go further, and say that this Bill, which is either a good Bill or a bad Bill, is not a Bill which is susceptible of amendment, unless it were desired—and that would be the responsibility of the Government—to produce the kind of amendment to Clause 1 which would substitute for the uncertainty that is going to be created a new certainty. But, as I say, I do not think that this Bill is really susceptible of amendment in this House. I know I speak on both these points for all my colleagues on these Benches, and that is why I think it is so important that we should consider this Bill fully on the Second Reading".
I would only add that when I made that speech I had not only had the opportunity of a great deal of consultation with all my colleagues on this side who were here, but I had also—and I am sure the House would wish to know this—had the benefit of discussing it very fully with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who we all regret is as yet unable to take his place as the Leader of the Opposition, but who, I hope, will be here after Whitsuntide. He has asked me to say that he most fully concurs in the advice which others and I ventured to tender to the House. Those views are, I know, shared by the great majority on tins side of the House and I therefore commend this course with confidence to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: As the noble Lord who moved this Amendment mentioned at the outset of his observations,

157
its terms are identical with those which were moved in an Amendment in another place by the small Liberal Party there, an Amendment which was pressed by them to a Division. In the observations that I myself made on the Second Reading of this Bill, I referred to that fact and expressed the view that while I believed all or most of my noble friends here would share the same opinion, the constitutional position of this House was such that a second consideration had to be taken into account, and that on all such measures we had to think of two things, first, the merits of the particular proposal, and, secondly, whether it was desirable for this House to push àoutrance their own views as against those of the popularly elected Chamber. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment holds the view which was expressed by Lord Milner in your Lordships' House on a famous occasion when it was a question of rejecting the Budget of 1909, that we should do what is right and damn the consequences. As in that case, so in this. In all probability the consequences would be, in Shakespeare's words, "most damnable." It would immediately give rise to a constitutional crisis, bringing into the very forefront of our politics an issue which no Party at this moment desires to embark upon, and in general would be contrary to the national interest.
We have to consider not only whether this particular proposal is right, but whether it would be desirable to press it; and while we may agree that the Amendment in itself would be desirable, the consequences which would follow from pressing it would be exceedingly undesirable. The noble Lord, whose sincerity and devotion to principle we would all of us recognize, would seem to be, however, a questionable guide on this particular issue, for he has said himself that he favoured compulsory membership by the working classes of trade unions; that an Act of Parliament should be passed putting upon every working man the obligation of becoming a member of a trade union, and apparently, making himself liable to penalties if he did not do so. He did not say whether, in this matter, there would be even a conscience clause at all; and why he should object to the proposals in this Bill, as many of us do, when in another matter he would be prepared to go very much further in the infringement of individual liberty I
158
cannot quite understand. On the issue he raises I trust my noble friends on these Benches will not support this Amendment on this occasion, and I hope that on consideration the noble Lord will revise his estimate of the comparative value of valour and discretion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (LORD JOWITT): I ought to say something, if only out of courtesy to the noble Lord. I do not propose to argue again the merits which were gone into very fully on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is the right, nay, the duty of your Lordships' House to investigate this Bill, as all other Bills, with most careful scrutiny. I would, as a comparative new-comer to your Lordships' House, like to say this. I think it is a bad policy to estimate the value of your Lordships' House by the number of Divisions we have. We have had a very large number of discussions on all sorts of matters, and we always say that a discussion has been a most valuable one. Allowing for the usual trade discount, there can be no doubt at all that a very large number of these discussions have been of the utmost value, though they have not been followed by Divisions.
Might I just let the noble Lord into a secret of mine? I have, as Lord Chancellor, on very many occasions accepted amendments which have been pressed upon me by noble Lords opposite, and sometimes, I do not mind telling him, I have had the utmost difficulty with my colleagues in the Government to account for my conduct. But I have always tried to give way, if I can do so, to an argument which convinces me, as a matter of logic, that it is right and sound, and that, surely, is the main function of a second and revising Chamber. I very much hope that the noble Lord on consideration, not of my observations, but of the more weighty observations which have been made already, will think again and not seek to press this matter to a Division.
LORD MERTHYR: I have very little to add. I should like to say this, that I am a little bewildered by the suggestion—it is no doubt entirely my fault—that it is right for a Party in another place, and I am not now referring only to the Liberal Party, to seek to tear this Bill to pieces by moving amendments clause by clause and dividing on each one, but wrong in your Lordships' House to do the same thing or in any way approach it.

159
I am a little bewildered but that, no doubt, is my fault. With regard to the question of compulsory membership which was taken up by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I would just like to say that I did emphasize when making that suggestion that the conditions must first be created, and satisfactory and fair conditions, before any such proposition could be put into force I would like to emphasize that.
I do not propose to go any further with regard to the constitutional point, but it is, of course, of vital importance, and I would like to suggest that if there has been a change, even a gradual and slow change, in the constitutional status of your Lordships' House, perhaps we could usefully hear somewhat more about it on a proper occasion. The only other point I have to decide is whether to divide on this Amendment. I frankly say that I would have liked to divide if I could have found any support at all. I equally frankly say that I have found no support, not even anybody to act as a teller, and in those circumstances it would be in no way right for me to cause your Lordships to go to all the trouble of going through the Lobbies, even those who would do so, and would not abstain. Therefore, with your Lordships' consent, and with apologies for detaining the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
3.8 p.m.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH/ (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, this is the first time during the current session that I have been able to handle a Bill that is in some way connected with the work of my own Department, and therefore to me at least this is an exceptionally pleasurable occasion. The object of this Bill is to enable the Post Office to borrow the capital it needs for the extension and improvement of the telephone, telegraph and postal services. All but£4,000,000 out of£50,000,000 required is for use for the telephone service The amount
160
authorized by the previous Act of 1942 was considerably less than we are now asking for, only£35,000,000 in fact, but spending, of course, at that time was restricted to works required directly or indirectly for the conduct of the war. The present Bill is intended to supply funds for new developments which could not be carried out during the war when labour and materials were in extremely short supply. The extensive arrears of work that must now be overtaken explain why the amount of money asked for in this Bill is larger than on previous occasions. The Post Office will also take over for its own use a certain amount of plant which was constructed for war purposes, and the cost of which was borne at the time upon Votes of Credit. The borrowing powers of the Bill will be used to the extent required to cover the cost of this new plant. The total sum of£50,000,000 for which we are asking in this Bill should meet the requirements of the Post Office until about June, 1948.
The Post Office is, of course, experiencing many difficulties in the aftermath of six years of unremitting warfare, difficulties which, of course, are not peculiar to any one Government Department. These difficulties are a direct result of the war, and they cannot, unfortunately, be overcome for quite a considerable time. The large number of enlistments of Post Office engineering staff in the Forces, 16,00o out of a total of 41,000 men, and the inability to make good these losses by recruitment of more than 11,000 temporary staff, made it impossible to meet applications for telephone installations as they came in, and a waiting list of over 300,000 applicants has now accumulated. That this is a legacy of the war, and is not due to the operation of public control as compared with private enterprise, is shown by the fact that in the United States of America there are roughly as many people waiting for telephone installations in New York City alone as in the whole of the United Kingdom.
But there is one hit of good news I can give to-day. I am glad to say that during April there was, for the first time, a reduction—a small reduction it is true—in the size of the waiting list in the London region. There is good reason to think that we have now turned the corner in London, and that fresh installations will continue to reduce the number of people who are waiting for telephones. Since the end of the

161
war fresh demands for telephone service have been coming in at a greatly increased rate. In recent months they have been coming in at more than double the pre-war rate. The Post Office is making a great effort both to cope with current demands and to clear off outstanding cases, while, at the same time, it does what it can to improve the existing telephone service. It has already increased the installation of telephones to the rate of 60,000 a month—which is nearly 75 per cent. more than the pre-war rate. That is not, I think, at all a bad achievement considering the continuing shortage of engineering staff.
The borrowing powers in this Bill will enable us to do our utmost to speed up the provision of new telephone connexions. For this purpose additional ducts, underground cables in the streets and exchange buildings must be provided as time goes on. Unfortunately, all these jobs have to compete for labour with the building industry. In spite of this, the work of laying ducts and cables is already going ahead in over 200 towns, and plans are in preparation for further underground construction in about 500 other towns. The Post Office would like to plan for even more new work in order to cut down the waiting lists and enable new telephones to be installed with the least delay, but it is still held up by the short supply of labour. As demobilization continues a constant flow of skilled Post Office workmen is increasing our engineering staff, and the recruitment and training of additional men, of young men as a general rule, is proceeding all the time. As a result of this fresh intake from both sources the engineering rank and file staff which amounted before the war to 41,000 men, and which was only 36,000 at the end of hostilities, will soon reach the record figure of 45,000 men.
I mentioned earlier that the Post Office will be able to take over for the public service a considerable part of the plant laid down for war purposes during the conduct of both the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. The Defence Services have already surrendered several thousand trunk circuits and there are now in use, for public trunk calls, more than 12,000 circuits for distances of over 25 miles. This compares with less than 7,000 of these long-distance circuits before the war. So the number of circuits
162
now available is almost double what it was before the war.
The telegraph service has been handicapped by the destruction by enemy action of the Central Telegraph Office in London and by the loss of the Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth telegraph offices in the same way. The improvement of the telegraph network by the introduction of new switching methods, which will accelerate the transmission of telegrams, is now in hand and we expect these changes to be completed during 1947. We hope by the end of the current year to have made sufficient progress to enable us to give the public a telegraph service just about as good as we gave before the war.
May I in conclusion—because this is a Money Bill and I wish to be as brief as is customary on such occasions in your Lordships' House—stress the considerable output which the Post Office in carrying out its statutory duty of providing telephone and telegraph services for the public has succeeded in obtaining only nine months after the end of the war. Compared with pre-war days the Post Office is now carrying thirty per cent. more telegrams, is handling ninety per cent. more long-distance trunk calls and is installing over fifty per cent. more telephones each month. Your Lordships will realize that this has meant hard and sustained work by the whole of the staff concerned, and I should like to express my very keen appreciation, an appreciation which I am sure will be shared by your Lordships, of the fine effort made by the Post Office staff. During the war it kept open continuously the channels of communication, often under great difficulties and at moments of great danger. It kept open the channels of communication needed by the military and by the civil population at home. It has now turned with no less determination to its most urgent peace-time job of giving the public, as soon as the damnosa hereditas bequeathed by the war has been paid off, telephone and telegraph services of which the Post Office and the country can both be proud. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.17 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think we are all very much obliged to

163
the noble Earl for the account of the doings of the Post Office which he has given in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. We all wish him success in his office and I should like to join in the tribute which he has paid to the Post Office workers. During the days of the war, great pressure was put upon them and they had to carry out their work under circumstances of considerable difficulty. It was not too easy to sit, as girls were obliged to do—in some instances alone in a small exchange—and carry on the work of the telephone exchanges when the "blitz" was on. But the workers all stuck to their posts and so our communications never broke down. Indeed, without their work I do not know what the Defence Services of Great Britain would have done. We have to offer our sincere thanks to them for the courage which they displayed and the manner in which they stuck to their jobs in those difficult days.
I am sorry that we have not been able to get a little more progress even than we have done in the Post Office since the war. I realize that the Postmaster-General is hampered, as are others, by lack of labour at this time. But there are too many people waiting to have telephones installed in their houses, and I do hope that the Postmaster-General will look into this and see whether anything can be done to enable him to increase the number of his customers and to give this vital service in more homes. As a matter of fact, if a house is vacated nowadays, even for the short periods that houses are now vacated, you find that a Post Office man goes in the very next day and the telephone is whisked away, although often the wires are left. Then, so far as the installation of a telephone is concerned, that house goes to the bottom of the list and several months have to elapse before a telephone can be put in. I wonder if it would not be possible, even as a temporary measure, to make more use of telephones that were used by the Services during the war.
Another point I would like to raise, as we are discussing the Post Office, is this. When we want more telegraph poles, as we undoubtedly shall in some places, since you cannot put all lines underground, are we getting, or could we get, poles from Germany for that purpose? We have cut down too much of our
164
timber in Scotland and in our own country both in the last war and in this war. I have said this in the House before, but I do not apologise for saying it again. There are masses of timber in Germany and we ought to get some of that, not only for the Post Office but for houses, and make the Germans send it for reparations and to save the woodlands of this country.
A NOBLE LORD: Why not take the telegraph poles themselves?
LORD LLEWELLIN: If you do, at any rate they will be seasoned. I quite agree that we might take the poles so long as it will not cause a breakdown in the communications of the occupying Forces. But I do urge that everything should be done to get timber from Germany and from other countries. The Post Office is in urgent need of that, as I well knew when I was allocating timber in the early days of the war. The tremendous demands of the Post Office then made heavy calls on the best and tallest trees which we grow in this country. Apart from these observations, which I hope have been constructive, I rise to support the measure.
3.22 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question before the debate continues? I would like to congratulate him on the expeditious and excellent way he moved his own child—his own Bill. My noble friend spoke about the difficulty of obtaining technical, skilled workmen and engineers and, of course, materials. We heard an echo of that from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I understand that one difficulty has been the shortage of telephone operators. Is the Post Office getting what is needed, in the general demobilization scheme, in the allocation of labour? I have heard it said that one of the causes of delays is the shortage of girl operators.
3.23 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am anxious to ask the noble Earl a question with regard to his Department. He has given us a number of interesting figures, and told us of an increase in the number of telephones being installed, but I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had a similar experience to my own—and I know it is the experience of many others—when chaffing a number from an

165
automatic exchange. On some occasions you will hear a ringing tone, and then suddenly it shuts off. You then dial again, hoping for the best, with probably the same result. After that had happened to me a few times I took the trouble to inquire from the local exchange the possible reason for that. I was informed by the exchange that the automatic exchanges, in London, at any rate, are at the present moment very much overloaded.
Whether that is so or not I do not know, but the more telephones that are installed the more that difficulty must be aggravated, assuming that the reason given is the correct one. I am wondering if the noble Earl could say anything with regard to automatic exchanges as a whole. There is another point I would like to raise. Those of us who live in the south of London, and who frequently make toll calls, are very often given the "engaged" signal when we put in a call. On inquiry we are told by the exchange that the line—not the number—is engaged. If that is so it seems to point to an insufficient number of lines. I only put these questions to the noble Earl in the hope that he may be able to give those of us who suffer from these minor worries some slight help.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I say a word for consideration by the noble Earl in respect of requisitioned properties now being returned to the unfortunate owners. What I have in mind occurs in a number of cases, but I am in particular interested in the case of a noble Lord whose house, having been requisitioned for nearly six years, has only recently been derequisitioned. On de-requisition the War Department proceeded to remove the instruments which they had been using during the war. They were instruments, I may add, which were the property of the Post Office and not of the War Office so perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will see that he is personally concerned to protect this property. These instruments have been removed, torn away from the walls, and there seems to be no prospect for many months of getting the instruments back again, or similar instruments installed.
Those of us who live in the country, some miles from another telephone, know that such a state of affairs almost makes
166
the property unusable. The occupants are unable to order supplies, unable to communicate with their friends, and unable to do any of the vast number of things that people in the country have become accustomed to doing by telephone. If you restore their property to them, minus the telephone, which they have been accustomed to using for perhaps ten or twenty years, it is almost giving them property which has been deprived of a very large part of its value for habitation. I am not asking impossibilities. I am asking only for this—that people whose properties had telephones belonging to them at the date of requisitioning should be given priority in respect of the return of these amenities.
3.29 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Llewellin mentioned the Air Defence of Great Britain. As an officer who has served in a group in Fighter Command I would like to pay a tribute to the ground crews of the Post Office who repaired the lines. As my noble friend has said, air defence depends on quick communications; and that means land-line communications. When we had those raids on our smaller towns, the Baedeker raids as they were called, we lost a lot of lines because we had put our switching centres through the towns which we thought would not be bombed. We got our lines repaired with the greatest possible celerity and our signal section had the greatest co-operation from the General Post Office.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the Post Office engineers. I have had three telephones installed; one in Chelsea, which took five days to instal after application; one in Kensington, which was installed in one day, and one in the City in two days. I think there is a good deal in the method of approach to the engineers. Mine perhaps has been a happy one.
3.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, let me first say how much obliged I am to the House for the extremely friendly reception it has given to this Bill, and to a number of noble Lords for the constructive suggestions they have made about the work of my Department. I particularly should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for the tribute he paid to the work done by the Post Office staff during the war, and to the noble

167
Lord, Lord Waleran, for his reference to the work of the engineering staff which was helping to repair and maintain the circuits used by the Royal Air Force. I am not in a position to answer on the spur of the moment every question that was raised by noble Lords, but I will answer those with which I can deal without further consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that it causes great inconvenience when a tenant, at the end of his tenancy leaves a house, and the telephone is removed, because the subsequent tenant has to wait a considerable time before he gets a new installation. Those facts are, of course, completely true. The point is this, that, in every area, a very large number of people are waiting for a new telephone. Those telephones are provided according to the length of time that a subscriber or a potential subscriber has waited, or according to certain priority categories, and it would therefore be unfair for an incoming tenant to take precedence over people in the same area who had been waiting for a much longer time or had a much more urgent claim to the telephone service.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the noble Earl has slightly misunderstood me. I was only taking that as an instance of the need for pushing ahead with the provision of telephones to the greatest possible extent, although I must say with regard to the point made about places in the country, where they have always had a telephone before requisitioning (I should have thought that was a different point) I would support my noble friend on that.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely accept what the noble Lord has said. He mentioned that he thought that we might acquire timber, or indeed, whole telegraph poles, from Germany in the form of reparations, for use in this country. That, I am afraid, is a point that I cannot answer immediately, but I will certainly take personal responsibility for seeing that it is given careful consideration. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi who is not here (and whose question therefore I feel I need not answer) will, I am sure, appreciate that we are doing our best to recruit girl operators for the telephone exchanges, and I shall be pleased to inform him later of the steps we have taken.
168
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to certain difficulties he had experienced in connexion with certain automatic exchanges in London. He said the reason given was that the exchanges were overloaded. That may be the case. It may equally have been the case that the machinery was not in the best possible condition. It is, unfortunate that we have been unable to maintain a reasonable standard of maintenance in the plant and equipment of the telephone service. The standard has fallen considerably since the beginning of the war, and this very often gives rise to many inconveniences which your Lordships experience when trying to dial toll or trunk calls. We are, however, dealing with the overloading of exchanges, by building more exchanges in the London area. Some have already been started, and we have a considerable programme which will be carried out in the next few years.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, raised a point of considerable importance which I cannot answer immediately, but I will address myself to his point at the earliest possible moment. I am particularly grateful for this debate, which has extended for a greater length of time than the usual discussion which takes place on a Money Bill. I like to think that that means that the Post Office is giving a certain amount of satisfaction to, as well as occasioning a certain amount of criticism from, your Lordships and the public generally.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In February of this year the General Assembly of the United Nations met, discussed this problem, and came to certain conclusions with regard to the nature and extent of the diplomatic immunity which they desired to be given to their officers, and agreement was unanimously arrived at. In order that this country may adhere to that Convention, it is necessary for us to obtain from Parliaent the necessary powers, and that is

169
the object of this Bill. May I make this general observation with regard to diplomatic immunity. I have always thought that lawyers can raise all sorts of hair-raising problems as to what might happen with regard to diplomatic immunity, but these problems very seldom do arise, having regard to the character and the responsibility of those who are appointed to these great positions.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: There are exceptions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are exceptions, as the noble Viscount has mentioned in his interjection. However, that is not a matter which should be in any way lightly, or inadvisedly, embarked upon. I have no doubt that your Lordships at a later stage, if necessary, will give us the benefit of your experience on your careful consideration of this Bill. I am bound to say that I do not think myself that this Bill goes any further than is necessary, to enable us to adhere to the United Nations Convention. That Convention points this out, that the privileges and immunities are accorded to the representatives of members not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves, but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the United Nations. Consequently, a member—that is, one of the States, of course—not only has a right, but is under a duty to waive the immunities in any case where, in the opinion of the member, the immunity would impede the course of justice. They can be waived without prejudice to the purpose for which immunity is accorded. Section 29 provides that the United Nations shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes where immunity is not waived.
I think that is right, and with regard to the officers of the United Nations, the Secretary-General is given power to waive the privileges of any one of his officers. With regard to the Secretary-General himself, the Security Council are given power to waive his privileges. Therefore, there is a complete right to waive where that is necessary.
Now I turn to the Bill itself. The Second Schedule of the Bill sets out, I hope in what your Lordships will think a convenient form, the effect of the amendments of the 1944 Act (which I may call the principal Act) by this Bill, showing
170
the amendments in black type. Your Lordships will observe that the Second Schedule shows that this is the utmost extent to which we can be asked to go. Our Order in Council need not go so far as this. If your Lordships will look at page 4, line 42, you will see the words "to such extent as may be so specified," and on page 5, line 10, ".…except in so far as the operation of the said Part IV is excluded…." It does not necessarily follow that the Order in Council will provide all these things, but these things are the maximum, the ultimate limit, with which the Order may deal.
In pointing out the salient features to your Lordships, I must refer to one which is important, and that is the omission of the words which occurred in the 1944 Act "other than British subjects." The effect of this Amendment will be that certain British subjects may be able to claim in this country full diplomatic immunity. In the old days it was often the fact that British subjects sought to be made diplomatic representatives of small Powers in order that they might carry on their lives here and enjoy diplomatic immunity at the same time. That has been stopped for many years. There were many obvious disadvantages in such a course. I may point out, however, that this part of the Bill applies only to the highest officials of the United Nations Organization, that is to the Secretary-General, the Assistant Secretaries-General (who may be seven or eight in number), and the representatives of the member governments. The greatest importance is attached to these higher officials having exactly the same independence in relation to the countries of which they are nationals as they would have in regard to other countries. The number of British subjects covered will be, of course, extremely small, and the occasions on which immunity will be exercisable will be limited. I agree that difficult theoretical questions might arise about crimes committed, but I think the provisions about waiver to which I have referred already will prove a satisfactory safeguard.
Since we have decided to ask your Lordships to modify the principle that no British subject should have diplomatic immunity in this country, in order to cover the case of any of these high officials who might be a British subject it has been

171
thought right no longer to distinguish between representatives of foreign Governments and representatives of the Dominions to assemblies and conferences of the United Nations. Therefore the latter, as representatives of the Dominions, may also be invested with diplomatic immunity.
There are two further extensions to which I ought to call your Lordships' attention. The first is indicated by the words in heavy type on page 4 of the Bill. In order to comply with Article V of the Convention, there has been added to Section 1(2) (b) words to include the class of persons employed on temporary official missions such as, for instance, investigation of an international dispute. Secondly, as indicated by the words in heavy type on page 5, to comply with Section 16 of the Convention, privileges and immunities to be granted to the representatives of foreign Governments have also to be extended to the higher officials of their delegations down to the rank of Secretary of Delegation, and certain immunities have to be conferred in respect of their wives and children. Then I come to the question of exemption from taxation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask where the words "down to the rank of Secretary of Delegation" occur?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is certainly the intention of Article 16.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May be it is in the Order in Council.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May be. It may not be on page 5. That is a point I think we ought to examine and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising it. It ought to be looked at. Now I wish to draw attention to the change set out on page 3 of the Bill in the proviso to Section 1 of the 1944 Act which prevented exemption from rates and taxation being conferred on any British subject. That we are proposing to change and the grounds for the change are that if United Nations Organization officials are subject to Income Tax on their salaries in their own country but not elsewhere, it is impossible to secure equality of emolument as between officials of different countries who are doing the same work. In consequence, our Delegation gave support to the proposal at the General
172
Assembly that the exemption from taxation of salaries should be irrespective of nationality. But the new proviso clearly provides that the members of the United Kingdom Delegation cannot, under the Bill, claim any immunities in this country.
Two new paragraphs are added to the Schedule to the 1944 Act which, I think, are numbers five and six of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Bill. I think they are self-explanatory and I need not spend time on them. With regard to the duration of the Bill, your Lordship will remember that the 1944 Act extends for five years only, with a right of extension thereafter on the appropriate resolution being passed, but as we most surely hope that the United Nations Organization is going to be a permanent institution we are making this a permanent Bill and removing the five years limitation. There is one further matter which I shall explain. We have taken the opportunity in this Bill to deal with the position of judges of the International Court of Justice. That matter is to come before the General Assembly of the United Nations at its next meeting and we are asking for power to pass Orders in Council to give effect to the conclusions which the General Assembly of the United Nations may reach in regard to the immunity of the high officials of the International Court. Obviously when they are on official duty, on their way to the Court and so on, there ought to be some immunity, and that matter is going to be discussed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
I would mention in conclusion that our obligations under the Convention apply not only to the United Kingdom but also to Southern Rhodesia, Newfoundland, Burma, all British Colonies, Protectorates and Protected States and Mandated Territories. That gives rise to the not altogether satisfactory position, but a very common one, in which we are assuming obligations which we cannot meet unless the Governments of these territories agree to enact the necessary domestic legislation. I have no reason to think that they will not agree—indeed I have every reason to think they will—but it is an unfortunate position. Although we have not yet received positive assurances from them I think there is no doubt that we shall encounter no difficulty in that respect. I put forward this Bill not as

173
being a controversial one—I do not think it is for a moment. At the same time, I put it forward as a Bill which merits and I hope will receive careful consideration. I do not want to go one whit further than I need go so long as we are enabled to implement and adhere to the arrangements which were decided by the United Nations, and I am sure that we shall all desire to show the importance we attach to that organization by extending appropriate immunity to their officials and representatives. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think all of us will be prepared to give a Second Reading to this Bill in the spirit in which we were invited to do so by the Lord Chancellor. I would like first of all to observe that, technically difficult as the Bill may be to understand, we are greatly indebted to the draftsman and to the Government for what is a comparatively novel way of printing a difficult Bill like this. I do not think the Statute Book hitherto has contained provisions some of which are in thin type and the rest of which are in heavy type. I daresay it will not be so in this case when the Bill is passed, but in order to make the matter as easy to read as possible we get provided (it is very unusual; I do not remember an earlier instance) in the Bill itself not only the amendments which are to be made to the Act of 1944 but a sort of reprint of what the Second Schedule of that Act will look like when these amendments have been made. The parts of the Second Schedule which are new are to be picked out because they are in thicker type. I must say that I think that is an extremely useful way of presenting to Parliament a Bill as technical and complicated as this, and I hope it will be followed in all suitable cases.
As to the subject itself, I rather agree with what the Lord Chancellor said. It is not the most interesting or stimulating corner of the law, but one has to remember as a practical matter that there are always two sides to diplomatic privileges. If you look at the other side of the matter, the question really is in what cases shall British shop-keepers who have extended credit to a customer not be able to enforce payment of the debt, and in what cases shall people who are
174
walking about our streets, for example, not be able to recover damages because a motor-car has been negligently driven by a person who enjoys diplomatic immunity? That is one point of view from which it might be looked at—the point of view of what I may call the common people.
I read in black type at the very end of this Bill that where any person is entitled to any such immunities and privileges as are mentioned in Part II of the Second Schedule as an officer of the Organization, then that person's wife or husband and children—I am not sure whether there is a definition of children in the Act or whether some other Statute will define it—shall also be entitled to those immunities and privileges to the same extent as the wife or husband and children of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty is entitled to the immunities and privileges accorded to the envoy. That is for the moment a little mysterious. I am not sure that there is a precise law as to the age which an envoy's child has to reach before it ceases to have the privilege of running down His Majesty's lieges at whatever speed it chooses without either it or its father having to pay. I know that really what happens is that in a gross case, at any rate the larger and most important Embassies never raise any question about it but pay as a matter of grace. It is, however, important to look rather closely to see how far this has got to be done.
The other general reflection which occurs to me is this. How enviable will be the position of any British subject living in this country who has, I will not say the good luck, but the necessary accomplishments and virtues to be appointed as one of these persons thus protected. If he is one of the high officers, he is to have such exemption or relief from taxes and rates as is accorded to an envoy, and there is no doubt of course than an Ambassador pays no taxes. He is to have no liability in this country on any legal process, so that if he can manage to incur any debts here he need never pay them, and if he commits any sort of wrong not connected with contract he need never pay any compensation. I am quite sure, of course, that in gross cases it would none the less be done as a matter of grace, but we are told that the Secretary General has the "power" to disallow the immunity. It

175
is a power; it is not an authority or a duty.
I do not say these things in the least from a desire to suggest that these immunities may not be necessary, because I do not know, but what I am quite clear about is that it is the duty of this House to be reasonably well satisfied on the Committee stage as to what these immunities really do amount to and whether they really are, as I am sure the Lord Chancellor means them to be, the minimum that is right and fair. It is not very long since there was a rumpus in the capital of another State because the son of an Ambassador drove a motor-car in the streets to the danger of the public. Anyone who is interested in the ancient literature of this subject may refresh his memory on the case of Pantaleon Sa, who, if I recollect rightly, was the brother of the Portuguese Ambassador in the time of Cromwell. What he did was very serious and what happened to him I am not quite clear about.
I venture to think that the proper way in which to deal with this Bill is the way the Lord Chancellor suggests, namely, to recognize that the principle it is aiming at is certainly to be admitted and to recognize further that it is very carefully drafted, but at the same time, before we reach the Committee stage, to look very carefully at what is provided and to see whether there is as a matter of fact any instance in which the position is unnecessarily generous to the person privileged and therefore unnecessarily severe on the ordinary British subject who might suffer thereby. I very well remember the passing of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act of 1944 in this House, and I think I am right in saying that in the course of its being carried quite considerable changes were made in the direction of securing that these privileges should not go too far. In particular, there is a section in the Act of 1944 which provides for reciprocal treatment; it says in effect "We are not bound to give your diplomat privileges to this extent unless in your country you do the same with ours". That does not, of course, apply when dealing with an international body like the United Nations, but I think we should still want to consider whether, before we finally enact this, we have got reasonable assurances that something to the same effect is going to be enacted in
176
the other countries which also form part of the whole body. I hope what I have said Will not be thought to be critical of the Bill; it is not. The Bill is most conveniently and admirably put together but it is not a thing about which everybody can be sure on every detail at first sight.
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I add a word in support of what has just fallen from my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon? In the first place, I want to say how fully I agree with something which is of very great importance in the matter of the drafting of many Acts of Parliament, and that is the system whereby Section 1 of the Act of 1944 is amended by a Bill, namely, the Bill before us, which not only sets up the section in its old form but sets it out as amended. Your Lordships, especially those not accustomed to studying beforehand the Bills which you can get in the Printed Paper Office, must be terribly puzzled to know what precisely the House is being requested to do in relation to a Bill. Even a lifetime at the law is not sufficient to make it easy to ascertain the effect of an amendment of an existing Act of some complication. The reason is plain to see. We have not got paper copies of the old Act before us. We cannot take a copy of the Act out of a library, for instance your Lordships' library, and make the alterations in pencil upon it, because the librarian would object, and secondly, you are in the greatest difficulty in seeing in many cases what is the precise result of the amendment proposed in the Bill before the House. For my part I would wish to express in the strongest possible terms my approval of the method adopted in the case of this Bill, and to express a fervent hope that the system will be adopted in a number of other cases in order to enable the House really to know what it is doing in amending legislation.
As regards the merits of the Bill, I have practically nothing to add to what has already been said, both from the Woolsack and by my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon. It is a complicated matter. I do not know if I shall be guilty of egotism in saying that I have had a good deal of experience in these cases. I remember in particular the case of a Minister from a South American Republic who contrived to make himself a trustee here for

177
a relative of his and who pocketed the money. He not only pocketed the money, but he entered the house of his relative and refused to give it up, and there was the greatest possible difficulty in dealing with it. As counsel, I must with shame admit that I failed in a proceeding against him in the first instance, but fortunately, after a decent interval of two or three years, he was removed from his post. I then renewed the effort on behalf of my client, and succeeded at any rate in getting him out of the house, and getting an order for the restitution of the trust funds. He fought that nobly up to the Court of Appeal, and there, I am happy to say, I finally succeeded. I have been concerned with other cases of that kind. Although what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, says is perfectly true, that it is only in exceptional cases that trouble arises, still these matters do arise, and they have got to be considered.
In addition to what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, there is one thing which I have not worked out properly. Perhaps there is nothing in it, but I do suggest that this matter should be considered. An officer, such as a Minister or Ambassador, is appointed by a country and remains accredited to that country until he is removed or dies or retires. The high officials with whom we are concerned here are not quite in the same position. They are presumably not residing here permanently. They may come over here from time to time, and should be given certain immunity. I am assuming that the United Nations Organisation will not be in this country, because it has not been suggested it should be. They will either be in the United States or elsewhere. What I am not sure about is this; ought they to have, and will they have, immunities when they come over here for a period not on official business at all? A Minister who happens to be travelling backwards and forwards gets immunity because he is supposed to be a Minister with duties here, and all the time he is here, whether he is working or not, he is entitled to immunity. If an official of the United Nations Organisation happens to come over here, although his real residence may be in some city in the United States, is he to have immunity? As I say, I have not worked it out, and I am not sure what the answer to my question may
178
be. I only respectfully submit to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the matter is worth consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the reception that this Bill has had, and I agree with all the observations which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, have made. I would welcome careful investigation of this Bill from your Lordships and also your Lordships' help to see that we have not gone too far. I think, if I may suggest it, the most useful way to approach it is to look at the general Convention, which is Command Paper 6753. It is not a Convention to which we have yet adhered, but it would be a great pity if we did not, as long as other people do the same thing. The real problem is whether the powers we have taken in this Bill are sufficient to enable us to adhere to Command Paper 6753 or whether we have taken too great powers. We do not want to take powers wider than are necessary save with the question of this International Court where we are doing that in order to save a second Bill. I am very grateful to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
4.8 p.m.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) 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 Westwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
(The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.)
Clause 1:
Voluntary schemes for amalgamation of police forces.
1.—(1) If it appears to the police authorities for any two or more police areas that it is expedient that those areas should be amalgamated for police purposes, they may for that purpose submit to the Secretary of State a scheme (hereinafter referred to as an "amalgamation scheme") and the Secretary of State may by order approve any scheme so submitted to him.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the incorporation of a joint police committee with perpetual succession and a

179
common seal and for conferring on such a committee power to hold land, or to borrow money.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (5), after "may," to insert "after consultation with the police authorities concerned." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the police authorities concerned Will be consulted by the Secretary of State before he makes an Order conferring upon a joint police committee power to borrow money. The obligation to consult the police authorities will apply irrespective of whether the Joint Police Committee has been constituted by a voluntary or by a compulsory amalgamation scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the police authorities concerned").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes.
2.—(I) Subject to the provisions of this section, if it appears to the Secretary of State that the expediency in the interests of efficiency of making an amalgamation scheme for any police areas should be considered and no scheme satisfactory to him has been submitted to him by the police authorities for those areas under section one of this Act the Secretary of State may in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section by order make such scheme as he considers expedient, and the provisions of section one of this Act shall apply in relation to any such scheme as they apply in relation to schemes made under that section.
(2) Before making a scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall give to the police authorities concerned notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme; and unless those authorities give notice to the Secretary of State that they assent thereto, the Secretary of State shall cause a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him (not being an officer of police or of any government department), and the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act 'shall have effect with regard to any such inquiry.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (I), after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert "before such date as he may fix." The noble Lord said: Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes. Before agreeing to the use of this power the Secretary of State will give the police
180
authorities every possible assistance in formulating voluntary amalgamation schemes under Clause 1. In the interests of efficiency, however, it may be necessary to set some time limit upon the preparation and submission of voluntary schemes and what this time limit should be will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. The purpose of the Amendment is to assure that before the Secretary of State initiates the procedure for a voluntary scheme he will inform the police authorities concerned of the time limit which he has fixed in their case for the submission of a satisfactory voluntary scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("before such date as he may fix").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (2), after "shall," where that word first occurs, to insert "publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the areas of the authorities a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme and shall." The noble Lord said: The Bill provides that where proposals made by the Secretary of State for the constitution of a joint police force are not acceptable to the police authorities concerned, a public inquiry is to be held. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that all persons interested have notice of the nature of the proposals which are the subject of the inquiry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the areas of the authorities a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme and shall").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Provision of buildings and acquisition of land for police purposes by county and town councils, and joint police committees.
(2) A police authority or such a joint police committee as aforesaid may, with the consent of the Secretary of State purchase by agreement, or may be authorised by means of an order made by them and confirmed by the Secretary of State to purchase compulsorily, any land whether within or without their area which is required for the purposes of the power conferred by subsection (I) of this section.
(3) The following provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, that is to say, Part III of the First Schedule, Part I of the Third Schedule (except paragraph 2 and sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 3) and paragraph 4 (except head (b) of subparagraph (i)) of Part II of that Schedule shall apply to an order under the last foregoing subsection with the substitution for any reference to the responsible authority of a reference to the council of a county or burgh or the joint police committee, and with any other necessary modifications.
(4) Nothing in this section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land which is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest or which belongs to any local authority or to any public undertakers within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935; and where any land proposed to be acquired by means of a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this section is situate within such distance as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State from any of the royal palaces or parks the county or town council or the joint police committee shall, before submitting the order to the Secretary of State for confirmation, send a copy of it to the Minister of Works.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (2), after "agreement," to insert "or take on lease." The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment to make it clear that a police authority may acquire land or premises on lease as well as having the power to purchase. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, after ("agreement") insert ("or take on lease").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "by means of an order made by them and confirmed." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this and the following Amendment is to apply to the compulsory purchase of land under the present Bill the procedure recently enacted by the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. The intention, when the Police (Scotland) Bill was introduced, was to apply to compulsory purchase under it the standard procedure of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, but as that Act had not then become law reference to it could not be made in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("by means of an order made by them and confirmed").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert
("(3) For the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, the last foregoing subsection shall be deemed to have been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act.")
The noble Lord said: I have already explained this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1 leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Interpretation, etc.
12.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Enactment" includes an order, regulation or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act;
"Officer" includes a servant;
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "servant," to insert:
"'Enactments relating to county police' and 'enactments relating to burgh police' mean enactments relating to the administration and maintenance of county and burgh police forces respectively."
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to remove any possible ambiguity as to the meaning of the expressions "enactments relating to county police" and "enactments relating to burgh police." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Provisions as to Inquiries.
1. The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to hold the inquiry and to report thereon to him.
2. The person appointed to hold that inquiry shall notify the police authorities concerned and any other person appearing to him to be interested.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, at the end of paragraph 2, to insert "of the time

183
when and the place where the inquiry is to be held." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule requires the person by whom the local public inquiry is to be held to give notice to the police authorities concerned and to other persons interested. The Amendment makes it clear that the purpose of the notice is to specify the time and place of the inquiry.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).

COMPENSATION RENTS FOR REQUISITIONED PROPERTY
4.15 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider introducing legislation to enable compensation rent to be paid to persons whose premises were taken by the Government (whether by requisitioning or by lease) during the war, so as to cover the entire period between derequisitioning on the termination of the lease, as the case may he, and the date when the repairs are actually completed and the premises actually made habitable again. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name. During the war a certain number of properties were taken over by the Government. Some of these properites were taken over under requisition notices, others under leases for a fixed period of years—such, for example, as three years—or for the duration of the war, and I think I am right in saying that some properties were taken under the Defence Acts (not to be confused with the Defence Regulations) in which case the service of a formal requisition notice was not necessary. In all these cases, dilapidations have occurred, and I have no doubt that in the course of time the Government will pay for these dilapidations. But after the premises have been derequisitioned or the lease has come to an end, as the case may
184
be, some six or twelve or even eighteen months may elapse before the premises are restored and made fit for habitation again. That lapse of time is caused by lack of labour and materials, the necessity for applying for licences and also the extent of the damage which has been done.
I do not wish to make any undue criticism of Government Departments, but I think everyone will agree that occupation by a Government Department, especially a Service Department, causes a great deal more damage than normal civilian occupation. During the whole of these six, twelve or eighteen months, the owner or former occupier of the property will have to pay rent for living elsewhere, and may also have to pay for the storage of his furniture. I must confess that on the last occasion when I spoke on this subject, I omitted to draw your Lordships' attention to another aspect of this matter. If the former occupier is himself a tenant of the premises, he will have to pay rent under his own lease to his own landlord after the requisition has been terminated. He will also have to pay rent for the premises in which he is living in the meantime, and he may also have to pay storage charges.
During the period of requisition, it is to be hoped that the requisition rent will cover the amount of rent which the tenant has to pay under his own lease to his own landlord, but when the requisition comes to an end one can envisage cases—in fact thousands of cases have occurred in different parts of the country—where a person has to pay rent under his own lease to his own landlord and also pay rent for the premises where he happens to be living and probably has to pay storage charges as well. I know that in some cases the Government have made ex gratia payments over three months or even up to six months, but I submit that in the great majority of cases these ex gratia payments are quite unsatisfactory and quite inadequate to meet the justice of the case. I therefore ask His Majesty's Government to introduce fresh legislation whereby everyone may be put on the same footing, and whereby those whose premises have been requisitioned or taken over under lease during the war shall be entitled to claim compensation for the entire period which elapses between the end of the requisition or the termination of the lease, as the

185
case may be, and the date when the premises are substantially repaired and made fit for habitation.
4.20 p.m.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston seems to me to have raised a very important question, and I would like to say just a word or two in reference to his remarks. I am quite prepared to believe—I do believe—that the Government have every desire to act honourably, fairly and justly towards those people whose premises have been requisitioned. And I am quite certain that there is no one in this House who would be less likely not to support a policy of justice and fairness than the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who is about to reply. Certain facts, however, were brought to my notice the other day, and I took the trouble to inquire into them and to satisfy myself that they were accurate. They completely illustrate the point which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made, and I venture, therefore, to give them to your Lordships' House.
The case in question concerned forty-seven flats requisitioned by the Air Ministry in 1941. They were derequisitioned on January 26 of this year. Compensation rent was paid up to that date. The lessees, long lessees in this case, have every expectation, according to the custom in these matters, of receiving three months' more compensation rent—or possibly six months' compensation rent, if the case is regarded by the Government as an exceptional case. When these flats were requisitioned by the Air Ministry they were very extensively altered, no doubt for security reasons. The result, I am told, is that this block of flats looks more like fortified barracks than residential flats. In addition, they were bombed. Three or four were, to all intents and purposes, destroyed and the roof over this block was seriously damaged. Now, I am informed that nothing can be done at all until a schedule of damage has been produced by the Air Ministry. That schedule, although repeatedly asked for, has not yet been produced. And, as I reminded your Lordships, the flats were derequisitioned on January 26, so that three months have already elapsed.
Having obtained this schedule of damage from the Air Ministry the next thing (this I am told is the practice) is to obtain
186
a licence from the local authority to enable the restoration of the buildings to be proceeded with and materials to be supplied. I am informed—and I can well believe it—that when all this has been done it will take at least twelve months before the flats can be restored to their state when they were requisitioned by the Air Ministry. The result of all this is that the owners are most seriously prejudiced. In this particular case I have verified the figures. If you take into account the rents of these forty-seven flats (tenants are waiting to come in), and if you take into account the mortgage interest, which is running all the time, the money which has to be set aside towards the redemption of the mortgage, interest, and on top of all that the ground rents, the loss to these unfortunate owners is no less than£22,000 a year. Your Lordships will readily understand that a case might well arise, when this sort of thing happens, that an unfortunate owner might be driven to ruin and bankruptcy, through no fault or error of his own.
Now, what the noble Lord, Lord Meston says, as I understand it, is that until the schedule of damage is delivered and agreed, and until the work is completed, this compensation rent should still be paid. I think, indeed, that he has been extremely modest in that request, because even if compensation rent were paid it would nothing like cover the£22,000 a year which I have mentioned in the present case, the amount by which the owners of the flats are damnified by reason of the present situation. But it would be a very great thing if the Government would accept the principle that compensation rent should be paid until such time as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has indicated.
When this matter came up on March 26 this precise question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. What he said then was:
"… strictly speaking, these ex gratia payments… are outside the ambit of the Statute. Perhaps, therefore, the Government may consider forthwith bringing in a new or amending Act which will put everybody on the same footing and enable the Government properly to make payments of compensation rent after the period of requisition had been terminated."
I have not the slightest idea whether it is, or is not, ultra vires for the Government to make these ex gratia grants. If

187
it is, I should entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in saying that the Government are in fairness—I was almost inclined to say in honour—bound to take early legislative action to enable them to do the right and proper thing for this class or person—a person who, through no fault of his own, has been most grievously affected by requisitioning by Government Departments.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I would support what the noble Lords who preceded me have said, and I would quote a further typical instance in another particular direction. There are many schools and institutes which were evacuated, particularly from coastal areas, owing to enemy action, or threat of enemy action, in the years 1939, 1940 and 1941. In order to keep going, many of these schools had to rent, and in some cases to purchase, premises in what were then known as "safe areas." Their own premises were requisitioned by one of the Service Departments, usually, let me say, the War Office, not so much the Air Ministry. The rent paid as compensation rent usually did not cover the tenant's original continuing rent, which he had to pay his landlord, even though the tenant himself had to take premises else where. There was one school in the South Eastern area where a head master was paying a rent of£350 a year, exclusive of rates. He had to leave, and his premises were requisitioned. He had to rent another place somewhere in North Wales, at a rent of£400 a year, so that his total outgoings were£750 a year.
The War Office assessed the compensation rent of his school at £200 a year, so that out of his resources the schoolmaster had to meet a deficit of£550 a year during the war. These premises were derequisitioned some three months ago. Compensation rent has stopped, but unfortunately it will be many months before that schoolmaster can obtain a licence and, after he has got the licence, obtain the labour and materials to get his premises back into the state which will allow him to receive his pupils again. All this means that during the war period he lost£55o a year, and the price of peace for that schoolmaster is a continuing loss, at the rate of£750 a year, until he can obtain his licence.
188
I am quite sure that the Government look sympathetically at cases such as those of householders, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, and flats, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, and also these schools and institutes.
I do not know what the Minister is going to say, but it occurs to me, if we have the answer that legislation is not possible owing to congestion in Parliament—an answer which Governments give on varying occasions—to suggest that he should go into the matter and see if something could be done administratively within the law as it exists to-day. Actually, provided that you are not doing something that is thoroughly illegal, by administration you can usually do what you want within the law. This thought occurs to me: Would it be administratively possible to introduce an interim derequisitioning period, that is to say, that the Department which is evacuating the premises—for example, the War Office—should say that they are willing to vacate them on a particular date, but that there should be some Department that would say—with Treasury consent, of course—that derequisitioning could be postponed for a specific period, which specific period would be assessed at the time likely to be needed to obtain a licence and the work completed subsequent to the licence being granted for the rehabilitation of these premises? A deficit, of course, would appear on the particular Service Department Vote, in that they would be incurring redundant expenditure, but provided that the Treasury had given prior sanction for such redundant expenditure, I do not think that the audit authorities could in any way question such expenditure, nor do I believe that the other House nor this House would offer any objection. I only put forward that suggestion in order to see whether, if the noble Lord says that legislation cannot be introduced, we can at any rate meet the unhappy lot of these people by administration.
4.35 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for returning to this subject, all the more so because the last time it was raised a number of supplementary questions were put to me which I was not then fully equipped to answer, although I do not think I positively misinformed the

189
House. As I explained last time, I am in warm, but I am afraid rather improper, sympathy with the kind of case raised by the noble Lord, having had a small house of my own requisitioned throughout the war. With regard to the particular cases raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, being old members of Governments they will not expect me to commit myself offhand. I will simply say that they have made out heart-rending cases. I will certainly address myself to them, and I will see that the minds of others more important than myself are addressed to them. If I may put it in a rather colloquial way, I will see that there is "a stamp on the envelope." I hope that that will be sufficient for the moment.
I should remind the House that, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the 26th March, I explained that, when requisitioned premises have been damaged, some allowance is made at the time of derequisitioning in respect of the time taken to make good the damage. This allowance is, of course, over and above the cost of making good the damage, which is met by the Government in all cases. I think that the House is clear on that point, that the compensation rent is quite separate from, and additional to, the compensation for damage, but I venture to reiterate it. The allowance is made in different forms in different cases. Sometimes, though the premises are no longer required, and the owner is able to go into them and repair them, they are nominally retained on requisition for a certain period, so that compensation rent continues to be payable. I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is aware of that arrangement, but that is the position. However, in most cases—in the case of private houses, for example—a lump sum payment is made which has, broadly, the same effect. But in all cases, as I was careful to explain, the calculation is related to the time it would take in normal circumstances to make good the damage, and not to the time which in the present conditions of stringency may actually prove to be necessary, which, of course, brings us to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston's proposal goes beyond the existing arrangements
190
in two respects. First, the noble Lord asks that in all cases the owners shall continue to receive rent from the Government until the repairs are actually complete—that I believe is what the noble Lord suggests—and the premises made habitable again. Secondly, he applies this proposition to leased property as well as to requisitioned property. I will deal first with requisitioned property. The owner has been receiving a compensation rent while he has been kept out of his property under a requisitioning notice, and at first sight it might seem reasonable that, as long as he is unable to get use of his property, as a result of damage done during requisitioning, he should continue to receive that rent. That is how it strikes the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but the problem is by no means so simple. The time actually taken to repair the damage will not always be more than the normal time; so I am assured. I am assured in some cases the time taken to repair the property has not been more than the normal time. But I must say, speaking from personal experience, that kind of case would appear to be somewhat rare.
What I must point out to the noble Lord is that there is a two-fold difficulty about meeting his proposal. First of all there is the administrative difficulty, on which I personally would not rest the chief emphasis, because administrative difficulties exist to be overcome, and, although this is a rather large one, I feel that, taken by itself, we would probably overcome it. Nevertheless, there is a substantial administrative difficulty if the noble Lord's proposal were accepted and the owner were compensated during the whole period it in fact took him to get his house repaired. The Government Department concerned would have to make frequent investigations to ensure that the owner was using his best endeavours to get the work done as quickly as possible, and differences of opinion would be sure to arise as to the point at which the premises became "habitable." You could not just say to the owner: "Until your house is ready you will receive compensation rent," because—
LORD MESTON: Substantially ready.
LORD PAKENHAM: Even if you said substantially ready you could not allow the owner to proceed rapidly or slowly,

191
according to his pleasure. You would have to make sure that he was proceeding at the maximum speed. There is an administrative difficulty which is rated fairly high.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Could not the local authority be the adjudicating party in respect of that time?
LORD PAKENHAM: I have no doubt that steps could be taken which might meet the position. Equally, I have no doubt that they would involve a lot of labour. I simply mention to the House that this is regarded as an administrative difficulty, which, if not insuperable, is not negligible.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? In the case I gave, as I understand it, the work had not been put in hand. A licence from the local authority could not be obtained until a schedule had been received from the Air Ministry, and, as I am told, they have been constantly pressed to produce this schedule, and have not done so for three months. Therefore, the delay in starting the work at all has been entirely the fault of the Air Ministry itself, and not the fault of the unfortunate owners of the property.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord will not wish me, naturally, to pronounce on the particular case.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: No, no.
LORD PAKENHAM: There may or may not have been some delay. I naturally cannot offer an opinion on that. But as regards the obtaining of licences, I am assured that there is no difficulty about obtaining a licence, but there is sometimes a difficulty about obtaining top priority. If it is a question of rebuilding the house completely, then it is easier to obtain a high priority. In some other cases it is not always easy to obtain as high priority as the owner would wish. Certainly I am entitled to say, however, that as between houses which have been damaged and have been derequisitioned and as between other houses exactly similar which have not been requisitioned, the preference, if in doubt, would go to the house derequisitioned. That, I understand, would tend to be the administrative
192
practice. However, the noble Lord has raised a special case which he will naturally desire to be looked into.
The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, however, is unacceptable, mainly, indeed, for administrative reasons, but also on the grounds of equity. The delays and difficulties due to the shortage of labour and materials are common to all classes of owner whose property needs repair, including cases of war damage, and the case before us is only one example of many types of loss due to war circumstances which I am afraid are outside the field of public compensation. I am sorry to say that, but there it is. The case does not stand on its own. The Government feel, in making an allowance based on the time it would normally take to effect repairs, that they are giving equitable treatment to owners of derequisitioned premises and holding the scales evenly between them and other classes of property owner. That is really the pith and burden of the reply. To the extent that this does not fully compensate for not getting the use of their property, the difference is attributable to causes common to the whole community.
As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question dealing with leased premises, I may say that the shortage of labour and materials of course applies to them too, but the more important point is that the lessor's rights are determined by the terms of the lease he entered into, and he has access to the courts to enforce them. Whatever those rights under the lease are, the Government as lessee must honour them; but there is no reason why the owner who has granted a lease to a Government Department should, when the lease is terminated, get something more than the lease provides for, when the owner who has granted a lease to anyone else does not. If the noble Lord's proposal were adopted you would be conferring a special favour on those who had granted leases to Government Departments. That is how the matter is viewed officially. I am afraid, therefore, that as regards both requisitioned and leased property the Government sees no justification for introducing such legislation as the noble Lord proposes.
The only remaining point is whether the lump sum payments made ex gratia in requisitioning cases ought to be made the subject of legislation. This is a legal

193
point. The Government do not think this is necessary. It is common practice and convenient, when supplementary payments such as those now in question are made, not to attempt to set out a precise code in a Statute but to make such payments as seem fair through the machinery of a Vote. It is therefore correct to describe them as extra statutory but not illegal payments. In the view of the Government, therefore, there is no need to introduce legislation. I am sorry not to have been able to meet the noble Lord more generously, but I am convinced that if these proposals were adopted he would be putting one class of property owner in a position superior to other classes.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I understand the gist of the matter is that the Government are not prepared to go further in any case than to make an ex gratia payment of six months' rent. If that is the position, I may take the advice of those who are experts in such matters—
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Is the noble Lord in order? He has not moved for Papers.
LORD MESTON: I thank you.
4.46 p.m.
LORD MESTONhad also given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will arrange that, on the derequisitioning of premises by Government Departments, the owners and former occupiers of the premises will be notified of the derequisitioning and given an opportunity of returning to their premises before any further requisitioning is considered. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name. This is a matter which lies within a very narrow compass. I do not wish to say anything at all by way of criticism of the Government in carrying out their very difficult task of finding dwellings for displaced and homeless persons, but I would point out that it sometimes happens that the owners and former occupiers of premises are themselves homeless and displaced persons. I understand that in some cases when a Government Department derequisitions premises the practice is for the Government Department to inform the Ministry of Health of the fact. If the premises are large premises, such, for example as a
194
large house, the Ministry of Health then promptly requisitions the premises again for some purposes such as a nursery. If the premises are small premises, such as a small house, then the Ministry of Health informs the local authority, who thereupon requisition the premises for housing homeless or displaced persons. In the meantime, the owner or former occupier of the premises is not even notified of the fact that the premises have been derequisitioned in the first instance, and is given no opportunity to return to them again.
I must not mention cases of which I have not given the Government prior notice, but cases have been brought to my notice of owners and former occupiers who are themselves homeless and displaced persons and would like to return to their own homes but are unable to do so because their houses have been requisitioned a second time. I submit that that is very hard, and while fully appreciating all the difficulties of the Government I hope that they will be able to take a different view of the matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if, when he replies, he can throw some light on the time limit which other Government Departments have allowed subsequent to the derequisitioning of premises and the final declaration by the Government that no other Department wishes to occupy such premises? There are not only in towns but in rural areas many premises that are now being derequisitioned, and the owners are unable to obtain occupation because these premises are put, as it were, on offer to all other Government Departments who might be interested. I am not arguing as to whether that policy is right or wrong, but let there be some time limit. I would suggest it should be fourteen days after derequisitioning during which the Government can declare that some other Department requires those premises. We all know we are threatened with prison, fines and a good many other penalties if we do not fill up forms within seven days. I am not suggesting the Government should have only seven days, but twice the grace they give to ordinary citizens. At any rate, let them impose some limit upon themselves.
4.49 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I rise to reply on behalf of my noble friend Lord

195
Henderson who, I am sorry to say, is indisposed. I hope I shall be able to deputise for him half as efficiently as he did for me when I was ill a little while ago. The present practice is for a requisitioning Department, when they no longer need small houses and flats, to offer them to the Ministry of Health so that they may be used for housing inadequately housed persons. I am dealing first with small houses and flats. The local authority has been instructed by the Ministry of Health first to ascertain whether the house is required for occupation by the owner or his family. If so, the property is derequisitioned. That is in the case of small houses and flats. Consideration is also given, on their merits, to any other proposals by the owner for the occupation of the house. If the property is required by the Ministry of Health the requisition is transferred to that Department; there is no re-requisitioning. If, on the other hand, it is not required, it is derequisitioned by the requisitioning Department. The Ministry of Health usually decide upon their action within a period of three weeks. This period cannot very well be shortened, as time must be given to enable the local authority to make contact with the owner and for the owner to make his decision. That is in the case of small houses and flats.
Before other properties are derequisitinned, including large houses, steps are taken to ascertain whether other Departments need accommodation in the neighbourhood. This procedure avoids unnecessary new requisitioning and helps the Government to surrender first the type of premises most urgently needed for other use. In the case of large houses, the Ministry of Health, before using them for any purpose, gives consideration to any applications from owners for release for personal occupation. Departments are given a period of ten days in which to decide whether they need accommodation surplus to the requirements of the requisitioning Department.
Finally—this is the third case—hotels, holiday camps, and educational establishments do not come within this procedure but are derequisitioned immediately they are no longer required by the occupying Department. Departments have been asked to ensure that these matters are dealt with urgently at all stages—I hope
196
that will afford comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—and to give as much notice as possible to owners and former occupiers of the intention to de-requisition premises. The time has not yet come when the practice of asking other Departments whether they require requisitioned premises no longer needed by the requisitioning Department can be discontinued, but the matter is kept under close review. It will be observed from the above that small houses and flats (notified only to the Ministry of Health), hotels, holiday camps and educational establishments are already excepted.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Could the noble Lord say whether the ten days which all Departments are given runs concurrently for all Departments, or whether it is ten days for one Department, ten days for another, and so on through the whole line of Departments?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord will appreciate that, speaking for a Department which I do not represent in this House, I am unable to give him a firm answer. I think in the circumstances, in the absence of a tic-tac system, I will let the noble Lord know by letter.
LORD MESTON: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

PAY OF PALESTINE CIVIL SERVANTS.
4.53 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM LORD ALTRINCHAM rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government can now inform the House of any steps taken to improve the pay and allowances of Government servants in Palestine, which are described by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry as "generally and sometimes pitifully inadequate." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name. Your Lordships may remember that I spoke upon this subject in the debate on Palestine not long before the Christmas recess. The Lord Chancellor, who replied to that debate, was good enough to give me some information on this subject and he referred in particular to two improvements in the lot of the Government servants in Palestine which had been made in the course of the war. He then said that the last of these improvements might not prove adequate

197
and he gave me an assurance in these words:
"I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has continuously in mind the special difficulties of the Palestine Service and the question of salary scales."
Some months have passed since then, and the conditions of payment and allowances for Government servants in Palestine have elicited a rather remarkable comment from the members of the Anglo-American Palestine Committee. They, after all, are quite impartial and responsible judges. I am bound to say I find it wounding to this country's reputation for fairness to its public servants that it should have been possible for such a comment to be made, but the Committee actually said that the salaries and allowances paid to civil servants in Palestine were generally, and sometimes pitifully, inadequate. Those are strong words, but from what I saw of the conditions there—not entirely alleviated by the action previously taken—those words are in no way exaggerated.
There is going to be an increasing strain upon Government servants in Palestine. Let there be no mistake about it; their period of trial is not at an end. The prices there are not, I think, at all likely to fall in the near future. We have, I believe, to take heed of the warning which has been given by a recent strike amongst the Government servants in Palestine. This complaint is the one thing which has entirely united British, Arabs and Jews, who acted together without any difficulty to establish their rights in this respect. This question was very close to the heart of the late Lord Gort, who knew far more about it than I did, because he was living with the problem all the time. He spoke to me about it constantly and when I was in Palestine I was able to satisfy myself that what he had said was in no way inconsistent with the facts. I hope, therefore, that I may this time have an answer from the Government which shows that the claims of Government servants in Palestine have been further considered and that more is going to be done for them.
4.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has raised this question in the House. The phenomenon of the inadequacies of the salaries of the Colonial servants in Palestine is to some extent a recent phenomenon in view of the rise
198
in prices which have taken place over there, but the strain under which they have been suffering must in many cases stretch back for at least ten or a dozen years. I had the privilege of visiting Palestine in 1938, at the time when the attacks of the Arabs upon our civilians and upon our troops were almost at their height and I realised the intense burden of anxiety borne not only by the Colonial servants themselves but by their wives and their families. Their work, too, was singularly heart-breaking in that the turbulence of Palestine at that time prevented them from carrying out those social improvements which they were most anxious to see.
It should perhaps be remembered, when criticisms are made in this Report of the lack of educational facilities for the Arabs, that the possibility of making those reforms was very keenly in the minds of the civil servants, who were most anxious to proceed with social amelioration but who were debarred from it by the turbulence of the times and later by war-time conditions. I suggest that we should take warning from this particular incident where British policy has been criticised, and rightly criticised, in an international document, and should ask the Minister for the Colonies to give very careful consideration—more careful consideration in the future than in the past—to the remedying of any financial grievances which may be adding unnecessarily to the burden and impeding the efficiency of Colonial servants in other parts of the Empire.
4.59 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have been asked to reply on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House and I hope the reply will in some way relieve the anxiety that is felt in the quarter mentioned. Approval has recently been given for increases in the rates of pay of officers in the higher ranks of the Civil Service in Palestine with effect from January 1, 1946, and at the same time increases have been sanctioned in the expatriation allowances payable to officers whose place of domicile at the time of appointment was outside Palestine. With effect from April 1, 1946, a substantial upwards revision of basic rates in the grades applicable to the second division of Civil Service has also been approved. The compensatory high cost of living allowances payable

199
to all officers have also been increased with effect from April I. The maximum allowance payable to a bachelor in receipt of£15 a month or over, for example, is now nearly£16 a month as against rather more than£9 a month previously, while the allowance to a married man with four children in receipt of the same salary of£15 a month or over, is now roughly£22 a month as against£19 previously.
In addition to these increases, a lump sum payment equivalent to two months' basic pay and basic allowance with a ceiling of£120 will also be paid shortly to all civil servants in Palestine, in recognition of the fact that the existing rates approved in May, 1945, have been found inadequate in certain respects, and more particularly, in that cost of living conditions prior to that time were not taken sufficiently into consideration. The total cost of all the above increases in pay and allowances will be in the region of£1,500,000 a year, while the cost of the lump sum payments is estimated to be£1,000,000. The total sum involved is£2,500,000.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for that most satisfactory reply.
5.2 p.m.

LONDON AIRPORT PLAN.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government where and in what manner the Minister for Civil Aviation intends to publish the report of the Committee upon which the plan of the London Airport is based.]
I do not know whether it would be convenient to the Minister in answering to give us at the same time any information about the depot which will be used in London. There has been the suggestion of Earls Court. I shall understand if he says he is not in a position to add that to his reply on the specific matter on the Paper. In that event I will put in a specific question about that at a very early date.
THE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, the report in question was pre
200
pared for departmental use only. The subject matter is highly technical, and I do not think that the Report would be of sufficient general interest to warrant publication. I have, however, given instructions that a précis should be prepared, and I will place a copy of this in the Library of the House as soon as it is available. As regards the supplementary question which the noble Viscount has addressed to me, I agree it is a matter of very great importance, and I would ask, with his agreement, to have notice given to me of the question.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I will certainly put down an appropriate question at a very early date, because I think it is a matter not only of great importance, but of great urgency. I take it that it will probably be convenient that this I should be in a pre-digested form, so that we can understand it. It will be sufficient, I take it, to give us the arguments for and against what I believe is known as the tangential as opposed to the triangular system. I believe there is a movement away from the tangential into the triangular system, but as far as the document sufficiently sets out what are the pros and the cons, and the reasoning on which the decision was based, I think that would be convenient. Will it also be convenient at the same time to state who are the outside experts? He said that not only departmental officers, but various outside experts had been called in to advise, and it was upon the combined opinion that the decision was based. It is always interesting to know who the outside experts are.
LORD WINSTER: My instructions concerning the précis cover that point, for and against the tangential system. I will take into consideration the further point as to whether the names will be published.

PURCHASE TAX ON STREET BINS.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will exempt from purchase tax, communal street bins, or household containers, purchased by local authorities for the purpose of carrying out the

201
collection of kitchen waste to help make up for the great reduction in imported feeding stuffs.]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place has undertaken to propose some further limited Purchase Tax concessions during the progress of the Finance Bill, and has indicated that he is anxious to collect suggestions as to what are now the most urgent claims for relief from this tax. I can of course assure the noble Lord that the Government have the greatest sympathy with his concern for stimulating the collection of kitchen waste for use as animal food, and that his suggestion will be carefully considered, but I doubt if it is free from difficulty.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, might I ask if he would represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he would care to send one of his officers to consult with me, I would probably be able to give him some information, particularly with regard to the difficulty now being found in various parts of the country in continuing the collection of waste food. Already over 2,000,000 tons of waste food have been collected through this effort, and it is most desirable at the present time that that effort should not slacken in any way. In view of the fact that I could show the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one particular place where two kinds of bins are being used for the same purpose, one of which is subject to Purchase Tax and the other not, perhaps he would be good enough to have one of his officers make further inquiry into this matter, and he would probably be convinced of the need for carrying out the recommendation.
LORD PAKENHAM: I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will jump at the chance of consultation between his officers and the noble Lord. Indeed, I feel he will be tempted to undertake the job himself.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Sixth Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—Resignation of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.
The Chairman of Committees informed the Committee of the resignation of his Counsel, Mr. Arthur A. Capewell, K.C., and that he had appointed Sir John Stainton K.B.E., to be Mr. Capewell's successor.
The Committee sanctioned the salary attached to this post.
2.—Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
The Committee agreed to the Report from the Sub-Committee appointed to consider a proposal as to an appointment to the post of Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
The Committee approved the payment of£500 per annum (including bonus consolidation) to Admiral Sir Guy Royle, K.C.B., C.M.G., on his appointment by Black Rod to the post of Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
The Committee further recommended that the severance of the post of Yeoman Usher from the post of Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain should not be drawn into precedent and that the matter should again be brought up for consideration when a vacancy occurs in the post of Yeoman Usher.
3.—Annunciators in Library and Refreshment Room.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that the Ministry of Works had notified their readiness to undertake the installation of annunciators.
The Committee recommend that this should be done.
4.—Editor of Debates.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of salary to Mr. G. W. Rowe during his continued employment as Acting Editor of Debates owing to the illness of Mr. A. A. Reid.
5.—Head Housemaid.
The Committee agreed to an increase in wages to Mrs. H. Smith, the head housemaid.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and approved. I think there is one general matter to which I should call your Lordship's attention, and that is that it is the recommendation of the Committee that annunciators shall be placed in Prince's Chamber and the Library and the Dining Room by which members can be kept informed of the changes in speakers as they occur. The Committee hope that that will be to the general convenience of the House.
Moved, that the Report be now considered and approved.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.7 p.m.

INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the India and Burma (Burma Monetary Arrangements) (Amendment) Order, which has already been examined and approved by the India and Burma Orders Committee of your Lordships' House, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALEDONIAN INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bill committed.

RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILLL.
Report from the standing Order committee that the standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Bills agreed to.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read and ordered to lie on the Table.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
First Report from the Joint Committee, being the Report on the Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.], made, and to be printed; the minutes of evidence (with the Proceedings of the Joint Committee) laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.