§ 11.8 a.m.
§ 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:
§ Extension of powers under 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 10.
§ 1.—(1) The Regulations which at the date of the passing of this Act have effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945 (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1945"), and any 1359 orders or other instruments in force thereunder, shall, in so far as their operation is limited, expressly or by implication, to the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of that Act, be extended so as to be applicable for the following additional purposes, that is to say:—
- (a) for promoting the productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture;
- (b) for fostering and directing exports and reducing imports, or imports of any classes, from all or any countries and for redressing the balance of trade; and
- (c generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used, in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community;
§ Provided that nothing in this Act shall be held to authorise the suppression or suspension of any newspaper, periodical, book or other publication.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "extended," to insert "as a temporary or exceptional measure." The noble Viscount said: We have been told that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it is with the desire to carry out that maxim that I have ventured to put down this Amendment. It raises a very short but, I think, important point. In the course of the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, yesterday—the admirable and convincing speech, if he will allow me to say so—he insisted very strongly that this Bill must be treated and taken in conjunction with the Acts of 1939 and 1945. I entirely agree with him. It is all part of a system or, at any rate, a tendency to interrupt and postpone some of the guarantees of liberty of person and property which are the result of centuries of political prudence and intelligence in this country.
§ In themselves, the actual proposals of this Bill, as was amply demonstrated by the debate yesterday, are not free from danger, but they have been justified—and the Lord Chancellor really insisted upon that most particularly—by the necessities of the time. I could not help feeling as I listened to the debate that that excuse or defence of the measure is merely an adaptation of the old raison d'état which was the excuse and justification for all arbitrary government 1360 in the past. But I do not question for a moment the validity of the principle of this defence. All I wish to press on your Lordships is that it very easily leads to radical forms of government. It is such an attractive and simple way out of difficulties. In 1939 the reasons were overwhelming, I quite admit it. We were fighting for our lives against an utterly cruel and unscrupulous enemy and we were bound to use whatever measures could be suggested to defend ourselves against treachery and fifth column disloyalty. In consequence, we had to accept measures which entirely suspended the ordinary guarantees of fair trial and publicity.
§ In 1945 we were faced by the enormous social and economic problems of the transition from war to peace. Here again the case, though not so overwhelmingly strong as in 1939, was certainly very powerful. As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, told us yesterday—indeed he made it part of his argument—it produced a very, very far-reaching remedy, though not quite to the extent of the previous Act. Now we have a new problem. It is, broadly speaking, the protection of our means of international trade and it requires a great increase of production. I do not think I am misstating the broad outline of the problem which now presents itself to us. This is no doubt a cogent matter, though not of course in the same line of urgency as the crisis we had to meet in 1939 or yet in 1945. What I ask myself, and I do it without any Party prejudice in this matter, is this: How far are we going to travel along this road? There are those who would go very far. We know it. They have said so quite openly. The speeches made by Mr. Crossman and Mr. Zilliacus show the length to which they hope and believe they will be able to press this kind of procedure. When I was young it was a common maxim of people of that way of thinking that private property was a form of theft, and a little later on it was freely said, with a great deal of justification I admit, that a manual labourer was nothing but a wage slave. Obviously, maxims of that kind may lead you very far.
§ I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me. I do not for a moment suggest that the Prime Minister or most of his colleagues are revolutionaries. All the 1361 same, if this way of legislation is admitted as a proper and reasonable political device, can we be quite sure how it may be used by, let me say, a Ministry presided over by Mr. Crossman? Therefore I submit that we ought to take any precaution we can take to make it clear that this is purely an exceptional and temporary measure. No doubt it is temporary, because it is an Amendment of the Act of 1945, which itself comes to an end in three or four years' time, but there is nothing on the face of this Bill to show that it is an exceptional measure. To put it on the face of this Bill does not make a complete protection, I quite admit, but it does help future minorities to urge strongly that a further step on this road is not justified by anything we are doing today. It is because I am most: anxious, passionately anxious, not to embark on anything which can really attack the foundations of the great structure of liberty which we have erected in this country that I do ask your Lordships and the Government to give earnest consideration to this Amendment which, after all, does not in any way take away from or diminish the practical effect of the Bill but merely constitutes a warning against going farther on this road for the future. That is the sole purpose of this Amendment which I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, after ("extended") insert ("as a temporary or exceptional measure").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not intend to intervene at any length. Indeed, there is very little I could usefully add to the profound observations of my noble relative to which the House has just listened. I am quite certain that everyone who has heard the noble Viscount will have been deeply impressed by what he said. My noble relative, if I may say so in his presence, is not a man who belongs strictly to any particular Party. He has always been noted for his independence of mind and no doubt anything that comes from him on a matter of this kind will be listened to throughout the country with the respect which it deserves.
The only argument I can conceive the Government might use against this Amendment is that it is unnecessary—it is inherent in the Bill as it stands. As the noble Viscount has just said, it is true it is a temporary Bill. The 1945 Bill was for five years. Two have already 1362 elapsed, and these new categories added by this Bill will only be in operation, unless extended, for another three years. But at the same time, I think it is very important from the point of view of all Parties, of all constitutional Parties, that the fact that: these things are temporary should be underlined, and underlined Very heavily. Moreover, there is another word which occurs in the Amendment, "exceptional." It should be clearly understood by everybody in this county that the Government themselves regard a measure of this kind as exceptional in the ordinary course of action a Government should take. That is, so far as I know, to be found nowhere in the Bill.
I have not the slightest doubt twat every noble Lord sitting opposite would accept the word "exceptional," but there are a great many of their colleagues in another place who do not, whose whole purpose and policy is to make the form of government represented by this Bill a real permanence in this country. There is no secret about it. They have said it openly in the House of Commons and outside. We consider it important that the Government should make it clear that they stand, just as we do, for the basic principles of liberty. Liberty is being attacked in every part of the world at the present time and I am quite sure that liberty can only be preserved by positive action, otherwise it will be crumbed away and crumbled away until we find ourselves in the unhappy position in which Germany and Italy and Russia have found themselves. That would be not only an absolute disaster but the antithesis of everything that this country has stood for ever since its Parliamentary history began. It does seem to me that, although this Amendment is not. of very great importance, it does enshrine a great principle. If the Government could see their way to accept it, I am sure that it would be regarding with satisfaction, not only by your Lordships hut by a large section of public opinion in the country.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEI venture to hope, in spite of my great sympathy with tie mover of this Amendment, that it will not be pressed, arid I do not think the Government ought to accept it. If it is an Act of Parliament, it is something which the Law Courts have to interpret. I cannot see how any Court could decide 1363 whether a thing was temporary or exceptional for these purposes, as distinct from other purposes. There is one other point in this Bill. The Bill is simply adding to purposes already covered in an Act of Parliament certain additional purposes. I venture to say that I do not want to specify only those additional purposes as "temporary or exceptional." I think the whole existing Act ought to be regarded as "temporary or exceptional." By a well-known rule of law, which is no doubt well in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—I may be taking the words out of his mouth before he utters them—if you specify one thing you automatically exclude another. If you say that these three additional purposes are temporary or exceptional, you in fact supply an argument that the purposes already in the Act, and the immense powers already in the Act, are neither temporary nor exceptional. I suggest to your Lordships that it is far more important to maintain that the whole of the original Act is " temporary or exceptional."
§ VISCOUNT SIMONWith great respect to the noble Lord, they are temporary. They have to expire three years and three months from now.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEYes. Then why put in these additional words for these particular purposes? I venture to suggest that the Amendment is almost as unnecessary as the Bill which we are now considering. It is a little difficult to put it higher than that.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)I think the observations which have been made by the two noble Lords have largely covered the points. I agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that anything which is said by the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment is entitled to and receives great consideration from your Lordships' House and from a much wider public outside. I agree that throughout his life he has stood for the principle which we must always remember, that eternal vigilance is necessary if we are to preserve our liberty. But, having said that, I do feel that this Amendment is not only entirely unnecessary—as to that I think there can be no question—but that in some sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, it is actually undesirable.
1364 The first thing to make absolutely plain (the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just pointed it out) is that this Bill, on the face of it, is a purely temporary Bill. The operative words are these:
The Regulations which at the date of the passing of this Act have effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945…As we all know, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, which received the Royal Assent in December of that year, runs for five years, and five years only. Therefore, the whole edifice comes to an end in December, 1950.
§ LORD BEVERIDGEI think it should be on record that it can be extended for another year by Resolution.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am obliged to the noble Lord. That is, of course, accurate. It can be extended by the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. So unless both Houses so desire, and give an affirmative Resolution, it does come to an end in December, 1950.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOODI did say that.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat is a fundamental consideration of which the noble Viscount has not lost sight. So much for its being temporary. With regard to its being exceptional, the whole object of putting in the Preamble which we did put in was to emphasize—in a much more effective way, if I may say so, than by putting in the word "exceptional"—that this is an exceptional measure. We do not very often get Preambles at all now. We have a Preamble to this Bill, the second paragraph of which says:
And whereas, by reason of the war and the dislocation of trade consequent thereon, supplies and services available are, or are likely shortly to become, insufficient for meeting the essential needs of the community, and it has become necessary that the use of the powers conferred by those regulations should be directed more particularly to increasing production and redressing the balance of trade:Now, therefore, be it enacted …The object of that Preamble is to call attention to the fact that we are here dealing with exceptional measures. Therefore, I maintain it is manifest that this Amendment is unnecessary.The Bill is a temporary Bill, and it is a measure to deal with an exceptional state 1365 of affairs. I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. Why should we extend to this Bill some provision and some statement which we do not extend to the Act of 1945? They are both, as we know, on the face of them, temporary measures. Why should we take the trouble to describe one as temporary, arid not so describe the other? I can well imagine the argument being used hereafter: "With regard to the Bill extending purposes, they pointed out that it was temporary and exceptional; but they did not use that phrase with regard to the Act of 1945. Therefore, let us go on with the Act of 1945." It very often happens that when you put in words like this they have the opposite effect of that which you desire. Of course, I realize the danger which the noble Viscount is anxious to guard against. I am afraid I do not myself have the privilege of knowing Mr. Crossman. I hope Mr. Crossman is not going to take the place of Professor Laski as a kind of bogy man. I have not read what he said in the debate in another place. I understand that in his young days he was a very keen footballer, and perhaps on this occasion he got offside. His Majesty's Government, with great respect to a very distinguished politician, are not represented by Mr. Crossman. If and when Mr. Crossman does become Prime Minister of this country, and forms a Government, then, of course, he will introduce with his colleagues such measures as he thinks proper; and I am sure we shall not prevent him from introducing those measures—which will no doubt be admirable measures—by any statement which we make in this Bill. I do not think that is being realistic. For those reasons, I ask your Lordships to say that, besides being unnecessary, this Amendment—if you do want to emphasize the fact that these are temporary things, the Act of 1945 as well as this Bill—is really inadvisable.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODI find myself in the position of being able to say that the noble and learned Viscount contradicted himself in his argument. His argument is that it is not necessary to put these words in, because they are really implied in the Preamble. That is one part of his argument. But he said that you must not put anything into this Bill which makes it more exceptional than the Act of 1945, because that would be to indicate 1366 that the Act of 1945 was not exceptional. If his Preamble is really properly described by him as embodying the conception that this is an exceptional measure, then the Preamble ought to be struck out for the same reason.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting. I have not the Act of 1945 here, but my recollection is that there is a somewhat similar Preamble in that Act.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODOf course, I do not know whether that is so or not. If that is so, then it does not do any harm to say that this is an exceptional measure, because the 1945 Act is already described as an exceptional measure. I think he gas been misled by the too great subtlety of my noble friend Lord Beveridge. The noble Lord has the very subtle intellect which always sees arguments that nobody else would appreciate. So far as I am concerned, I have nothing to add to these arguments upon one side or the other. I think it would be a desirable thing to have some statement on the face of this Bill flat it must not be used as a precedent for legislation which may conic to pass in the future. That, I think, is an important and desirable thing.
When my noble friend the Lord Chancellor says that the purposes of this Bill are clearly described in the Preamble, no doubt that is so, but the point is that you want something to say: "These are the purposes and they are exceptional in their character. It is only because they are exceptional that we ask for these exceptional powers." I certainly do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division if I am advised not to do so. I am certainly grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having made it as clear as he has and for the assurance that he, at any rate, would be no party to the use of this Bill as a precedent. All I want is to have something which we cm quote in future discussions with some more extreme Party, to enable us to sty that what they then propose is not justified by what we are doing now.
I feel very anxious about this matter. I feel that we are in the course of taking a step forward much longer and much more important than some of us perceive. I feel very strongly indeed that those members of the Labour Party who in 1367 another place said that they were against the entire Bill on those grounds, were perfectly right. It is a step towards arbitrary government, and it seems to me that nobody can deny it. I am very anxious indeed, but of course if the Opposition tell me that they do not feel that this is an appropriate step to take I shall certainly withdraw. But unless they say that to me I should be disposed to go on with this Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWould it be of any assistance if I were to say to the noble Viscount in the clearest and most emphatic terms that I regard this matter as a temporary and exceptional measure, and in saying that I am speaking as a member of this Government?
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODCertainly it helps, but the trouble about statements of that sort, as my noble and learned friend knows quite well, is that they are very effective for the time being, but a year or two later they are not so effective. That is why I wanted it on the face of the Bill. That is all I want. I have no other purpose, and I do not want to cut down the powers of this Bill at all. I quite recognize the force of what was said yesterday, that we must not look too narrowly on the steps the Government recommend for the purpose of meeting a crisis of very great danger. But I should like to see those words inserted, and I must respectfully ask the Opposition whether they are prepared to support it or not. If they are not, then I shall withdraw the Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI, of course, have the greatest sympathy, as I have already said, with the noble Viscount, and I cannot still understand, in spite of the arguments used by the Lord Chancellor, why these words should not be put in. I feel we are in a certain difficulty over this matter. The line which I advocated to your Lordships yesterday was that we should not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and should not amend it in Committee, but should concentrate upon maintaining the authority of Parliament—which is the important thing—by returning at an earlier date than had otherwise been intended, in order to keep an eye on each instrument which is introduced under this Bill. We intend to do that. We might put in this Amendment, 1368 desirable as it is, and send the matter back to another place, with all the delay which they would involve. But in view of the definite assurance which the noble and learned Viscount has given, I think that it would not, perhaps, be justifiable; and I should not be willing to recommend that course to your Lordships.
But I would make one comment on what the Lord Chancellor has said. We are grateful to him for giving such an unequivocal assurance on behalf, not only of himself, but of the Government. But if we are getting into a state of government by delegated legislation, we are also getting into a phase of government by assurance. Again and again we have tried to put into Bills things which everybody is agreed would do no harm, and might have done good, and each time the noble and learned Viscount has got up and said: "We cannot put these things into the Bill, but I am very willing to give you an assurance." I do hope the Government and the Lord Chancellor will realize that that is not the same thing. We recognize that the Lord Chancellor has great moderation in his views, but he is not the last Lord Chancellor, and the Ministers are not the last Ministers. We are putting Acts on the Statute Book, and these Ministers may be succeeded by other Ministers who will not be bound by these assurances. I hope that this phase is coming to an end; that we shall not have these assurances again but that in future, unless there is any definite disadvantage in the inclusion of words in a Bill, they should be put in and there should be no question of assurances.
I regret very much that the Government have not seen fit to take that course in the present case. I see no reason why they should not have done so, but in view of the very strong words which the Lord Chancellor used, and in view of the fact that we in this House propose to keep a very strict eagle eye upon every instrument which is introduced under this Bill, I think on this occasion my noble relative should refrain from pressing the matter to a Division.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODIn view of what has fallen from the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, I shall not press the matter further, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1369§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
§ Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 28), Bill read 3a and passed.