Lords Sitting of 2 December 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

Prayers.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (2):
"or such later date as may be specified by His Majesty by Order in Council being a date not earlier than the date upon which the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that arrangements have been made for the equitable treatment of such civil servants not being servants of the Secretary of State as shall suffer loss or diminution of employment and emoluments consequent upon Burma becoming an independent country."
The boble Earl said: The Amendment which stands in my name is put down in order to obtain from the Secretary of State a statement, which he promised on the Second Reading of the Bill, concerning the compensation which would be pay-
1024
able, or which might become payable to the non-Secretary of State's Services. Since then I have had my attention drawn to the position of the High Court Judges. I think they consist of one Chief Justice and three High Court Judges, other than those of the Indian Civil Service. These Judges were appointed by His Majesty, and usually held office until they reached the age of sixty. There is a provision in the Act which says that a Judge may resign of his own accord, but that if he is removed from office by His Majesty on the ground of misconduct, or of infirmity of mind or body, the case goes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who will report back as to whether the Judge should or should not be removed.
There are two questions which concern these Judges. The first relates to pensions, and the second to compensation. As I understand the matter, it is embodied in the Bill that the pensions of the High Court Judges will be met from the revenues of the Republic of Burma. I am not clear, however, as to whether they will receive any compensation and, if so, who will in fact pay the compensation; that is to say, whether it will fall as a charge on the new Republic, or will in fact be met by His Majesty's Government. The reason why I am chiefly concerned about this is that these Judges are having their services summarily ended through no fault of their own. I would ask the noble Earl when he comes to reply to tell us whether His Majesty's Government acknowledge a moral obligation to these Judges who are to be compulsorily retired, as I have said, through no fault of their own. This small Amendment is similar to one moved in another place, and it is put down in order to obtain from the noble Earl a statement about the High Court Judges and the non-Secretary of State's services. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very much obliged to my noble friend opposite for putting down this Amendment which enables me to make the statement I promised on Second Reading. I would also answer the question, of which he was good enough to give me notice, about the position of the High Court Judges. May I say how grateful I am to the noble Earl

1025
for the keen interest he has taken for a long time in the fate of these officials, and for the extremely courteous and friendly way in which he has handled this important question?
I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that I hoped in Committee to make a further statement as to the position of the non-Secretary of State's officers of the Class I Services in Burma. I added that the Government of Burma had already been invited to reconsider this matter in the light of the debates in another place. I promised to communicate to them the remarks made by several members of your Lordships' House on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. The whole matter has now been reviewed by the Government of Burma in consultation with the Governor, Sir Hubert Rance. I would remind your Lordships that none of the officers with whose cases we are dealing is a servant of the Secretary of State. They are all servants of the Government of Burma by whom they are recruited, and the legal position is that it is for that Government to settle their conditions of service. That does not mean that we have not throughout taken the closest interest in their future. We have indeed taken considerable trouble to indicate to the Government of Burma the very strong feeling which exists in this country and in both Houses of Parliament that they should be equitably treated on the transfer of power.
I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that I should explain this very complex matter in the light of the latest reports from Burma. It now appears that there are about forty-three European long-service officers of the non-Secretary of State's Class I Services, of whom thirty are pensionable and thirteen non-pensionable. There are, in addition, some fifty officers, principally in the Railway, Marine and Public Works Departments, on short-term contracts of which the provisions vary. There may—although this is not certain—be one or two Europeans in the Class II Services. There are also about a dozen subordinates of the standing of police sergeants. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that, in the light of the discussions in your Lordships' House and in another place, the Government of Burma, while they are not prepared to agree to full compensation on the same basis as for the Secretary of State's Services, now propose certain additional concessions to the officers con-
1026
cerned. They had, as your Lordships will remember, already agreed to give to pensionable officers proportionate pensions on the analogy of those for the Secretary of State's Services. This is a concession, I ought to remind your Lordships, to which these officers are not entitled under their conditions of service.
What the Government of Burma now propose is as follows: First of all, to recalculate proportionate pensions in these cases on the basis of a more generous formula. The effect of the re-calculation, to take a single example, will be to give forest officers, who would have been entitled under their previous formula to a pension of £363 a year, a pension of £393 a year, or £30 a year more. Secondly, they propose to give every such officer, whether he is offered further employment or not, a resettlement grant of £500. Finally, passages for the officers concerned and their dependants will be admissible to the officers concerned as under the Premature Retirement Rules of the Secretary of State's Services. The effect of this is the provision of a single passage for the officer, his wife and his dependent children from the place of his employment in Burma to his place of settlement within the British Empire—whether it be to the United Kingdom or to any other part of the Empire to which he may go. The non-pensionable officers in Class I whose appointments are terminated will receive their Provident Fund balances and all leave due to them. In the case of the railways it is likely—but this matter is still under consideration by the Government of Burma—that they will also receive proportionate gratuities on the analogy of the Rules for the Secretary of State's Services. The Government of Burma propose to grant officers in this category the same resettlement grant of £500 and the same passage concession as will be admissible to the pensionable officers.
I now turn to the class of officer who is engaged on short-term contract. The details of these contracts vary widely and, as they have been entered into direct by the Government of Burma with the officers themselves, their full provisions are not in all cases known to my Department. But it is, I understand, the case that certain of those contracts provide for the termination of service at any time subject to a due period of notice. To those not retained in service the Government of Burma will give all leave due to them and

1027
passages home. Where short-term contracts make provision for notice, pay in lieu will be given where necessary. Where a valid contract is terminated and no provision for notice exists, the Government of Burma are considering further what should be done and there is reason to hope that they will, in such cases, be ready to pay compensation.
There are also the Class II Services which, I would explain to your Lordships, are recruited almost exclusively from the indigenous inhabitants of Burma. We cannot be certain whether there are any Europeans in these Services, but I am glad to say that the Government of Burma have expressed their readiness, if there should be any, to consider their case and have invited the Governor to make proposals for dealing with them. There are also perhaps a dozen police sergeants and it may be one or two other subordinates of the same standing in other Departments. The attention of the Government of Burma has been drawn to the case of these men and the Governor is discussing the steps to be taken for dealing with them. I am glad to say that the Government of Burma have already agreed that any European subordinate of this class whose appointment is terminated on the transfer of power, shall be given a proportionate pension and free passage home. They are still considering whether free passages should, in addition, be provided for their dependants.
I would like, if I may, to summarize the new proposals quite briefly. While the Government of Burma find themselves unable to pay compensation to officers of the non-Secretary of State's Class I Services at the rates fixed for the Secretary of State's Services, they have, in the light of the discussions here and in another place, made substantial concessions to the views expressed. The resettlement grant of £500, the more generous basis of calculation in the case of men who draw proportionate pension, the financial concessions as regards passages home, their readiness to consider the cases of any Europeans in the Class II Services, and to make provision for the police sergeants and other subordinates, are evidence of a real anxiety on their part to see that justice is done and to take full account of the considerations raised by your Lordships during the Second Reading debate.
1028
Now I would like to say a few words about the position of the Judges in the High Court in Rangoon, and I think I ought to inform your Lordships that discussions are still proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Burma. Therefore, all I can do now is to tell your Lordships about the decisions and agreements that have been made to date. The High Court of Judicature in Rangoon, as at present constituted, will cease to exist on the date of the transfer of power. The Judges, who are appointed by the King, will vacate office on that date. The Government of Burma do not propose to offer re-employment to European Judges but may do so to Burman Judges. It has been agreed that European Judges, on the transfer of power, shall receive pension or proportionate pension, as the case may be, and that they shall also receive compensation on a scale analogous to that laid down for the Burma Civil Service, Class I. The Government of Burma have accepted liability for pension payments. The cost of the compensation payments will initially be borne by His Majesty's Government, leaving the question of incidence to be decided later. The noble Earl will note that His Majesty's Government have undertaken to underwrite the obligation to see that the Judges receive these compensation payments, while the question as to upon whom the obligation will ultimately fall has not yet been decided. These matters are still the subject of correspondence and discussion between the two Governments. No decision has been reached on the question of the terms for those High Court Judges who will continue to function after the transfer of power.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am very grateful for the statement which the Secretary of State has made. I noted with some pleasure that at any rate some alteration has been made in the terms which were proposed for the non-Secretary of State's Services. I should naturally like to read the noble Earl's statement carefully when it has been printed. On the question of the High Court Judges, I would merely note that pensions will be payable to them according to the period of time they have served; I am not quite clear what amount of pension they will receive.

1029
So far as I can make out from the noble Earl's statement, the High Court Judges, knowing that their period of service will cease at the beginning of January, are still completely in the dark as to the terms of compensation which will be offered to them when the Republic of Burma becomes a fully-fledged Government. Here again, I should like an opportunity of reading the noble Earl's statement carefully and if necessary of raising the point again, possibly on the Third Reading of the Bill. Perhaps, in passing, I may ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, whether he will examine the point and see whether he thinks that men who have reached pension age and who will get no further employment back in this country have been compensated on a fair and equitable basis. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly look into this matter, in consultation with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, but I can assure the noble Earl that these Judges will receive full compensation on a similar scale to that received by the officers of the Secretary of State's Class I Service. That scale was set out in the White Paper dealing with compensation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

Prayers.

  ARREST OF A PEER.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to inform the House that I have received the command of His Majesty to acquaint the House that Captain The Lord Colwyn, a member of this House, has been placed under arrest in order to be tried by court-martial charged with an offence under Section 41 of the Army Act. I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return the thanks of the House to His Majesty for his most gracious message which he has been pleased to make to this House of the reason for putting Captain The Lord Colwyn under arrest.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In view of the exceptional character of the occasion, I believe your Lordships will give it your assent. I beg to move.
  Moved, that Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Bill [H.L.] precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and of passing the Bill through its remaining stages.—[Viscount Addison.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY PREMISES.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name upon the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether any premises belonging to the Territorial Army are still occupied by Government Departments other than the War Office and, if so, what steps are being taken to accelerate their return.]
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, eight Territorial Association drill halls are still occupied by other Government Departments. It is hoped that it will be possible to arrange for the early return of all these premises, but, of course, other Government Departments are also faced with serious accommodation problems.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he will impress upon the War Office the need for accelerating the return of these drill halls for normal training purposes, which need will be increased in view of the sudden and unwelcome announcement which has appeared in the Sunday papers that the period of camp for annual training is to be reduced from fifteen to eight days?
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask if the noble Lord will be so good as to ask the War Office to set a good example by returning these drill halls at the earliest opportunity?. I refer especially to the case of 452 Regiment, R.A. Further to that, would the noble Lord convey to the Secretary of State for War that it is hardly helping the cause of the Territorial Army that Territorial Associations and Commanding Officers should learn of reports as to what is going to happen in regard to training camps and so on, through the Sunday Press and through newspapers published on Monday morning?
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, may take it that the desire which he expresses is being borne in upon the War Office pretty insistently. The view which is expressed that they should relinquish these premises as soon as possible is thoroughly well appreciated. I will certainly call the attention of the Minister to the remarks

  1017
  of the noble Viscount, but it must be borne in mind that opportunities may have to be afforded for other Departments to decide whether or not they require the use of such premises. Your Lordships may be assured that the general pressure which is being manifest in this matter is well understood, and that what has been said in this House will be conveyed to the proper quarters.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: May I say with regard to this matter—
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must ask the noble Viscount please to remember the rules. General discussions do not arise on starred questions. It is usual to ask only questions arising out of the answers.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. Arising out of the answer which has been given to the noble Lord's question, may I remind the noble Lord that Territorial Association drill halls were established for a particular purpose—namely, the training of Territorials—and that that purpose should come first in regard to their postwar use?

  TRUNK ROADS.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government what mileage of trunk roads has been re-surfaced since the end of the war.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, 1,261 miles of trunk road have been re-surfaced since April 1, 1945.
  LORD SANDHURST: While thanking the noble Earl for this reply, can he say whether the present economy campaign is going to mean a reduction in the rate of re-laying other roads proposed for this year?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That, of course, is a new question, and I shall be very glad to answer it if the noble Lord would be good enough to put it down on the Paper.

  ROAD MAINTENANCE.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name on the Older Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government the number of men employed on road maintenance, as apart from new construction, in 1938, and the corresponding figure for the latest available date prior to September 30, 1947.]
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the figures for 1938 are not available. Those at the outbreak of war and at Sep! ember, 1947, were estimated at 110,000 and 92,000 respectively.
  LORD SANDHURST: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Arising out of that, is it from the very much reduced staff for road maintenance that a further reduction is now to be made?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The further reduction of course would be made in existing staffs employed on the maintenance of roads.

  NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  2.42 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure the House will grant me the Second Reading of this Bill. It is interesting to note that the Dominion of New Zealand, since 1857, has not required any intervention by this House and its Constitution was set up only in 1852. There are certain limitations of the power of the New Zealand Government as so constituted. The Statute of Westminster, in Section 8, provides that:
  "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution … of the Commonwealth of Australia or … New Zealand otherwise that in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act."
  That would be the law of 1857. The Statute goes on to say, in Section 10 (2):
  "The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any section referred to in subsection (1) of this section."
  And New Zealand is mentioned as one of the Dominions so entitled.

  1019
  This Bill seeks to remove the limitations imposed hitherto on the Government of New Zealand and gives them complete freedom, which is only logical and reasonable, to amend their Constitution according to their own wishes. That, I may say, has already been done in the cases of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa. In the case of Canada there are special provisions in the British North America Act which relate to Canada in a different way. This Bill means, in effect, that the complete independence of New Zealand is hereby accorded, although New Zealand has, in fact, been independent for a long time, and we have received in full measure the value of its co-operation independently and freely given. I should like to quote what Mr. Fraser, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, said in the New Zealand Parliament:
  "If the adoption of the Statute of Westminster were to lessen the tie between New Zealand and the Empire I would have nothing to do with it, but my opinion is that if this Statute were adopted it would strengthen the tie."
  I am quite sure that every one of us will be heartily in accord with that statement. We all know what New Zealand's independence and freedom to make their own contribution to Empire needs have meant in two great wars, and I feel sure that the House will gladly take this opportunity of paying tribute to that splendid and loyal member of the British Commonwealth. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison.)
  2.46 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite certain that this Bill needs no commendation from me, for in what he has said the Leader of the House has spoken for all Parties alike in the State, but I think it is perhaps fitting that one word should be said from these Benches in support of a measure which is so fully in harmony with the traditions and spirit which animate the British Commonwealth. The essence of this Commonwealth of Nations to which we belong is that it is a living organism which constantly develops and constantly evolves in accordance with changing circumstances. In the old days New Zealand was still, if I may say so, in a stage of
  1020
  adolescence and was still dependent to some degree on the Mother Country. To-day she is a nation that has achieved full maturity. She is a nation that under the Statute of Westminster in all respects is equal to ourselves and a member of the United Nations, wise and experienced. Such a nation clearly is no longer in need of any leading strings and the limitations to her freedom of action in amending her own Constitution have ipso facto become an anachronism.
  If she is closer to us than ever before, as I believe she is, it is not because of any such statutory ties as that; it is because she shares with us in loyalty to the Throne, a common outlook, and an independent and undying allegiance to all that the Commonwealth stands for. New Zealand, as the noble Viscount has said, has an unsurpassed record of staunch championship of those undying principles of liberty and justice which are inseparably connected with the name of Britain. For these principles her people have already shown in two world wars that they are willing both to live and to die. For such a nation, which may be small in size but which is certainly great in stature, such restrictions as are brought to an end by this Bill have become a palpable absurdity, and we in this Parliament of the United Kingdom are therefore glad to join with her in relegating them to the limbo of the past.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we on these Benches gladly join in promoting the passage of this Bill. In passing it, let us send to New Zealand a message not only of our respect but of our deep affection for that great Dominion.
  2.49 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I add one word in entire concurrence with what has been said? I think it would be of some interest to observe that this Statute marks a very interesting development from the constitutional point of view. Those of us who have had to study pretty closely the development of Constitutions inside the Commonwealth but outside this island must mark the occasion. The old system which was adopted in the case of the Constitution of New Zealand was for this Parliament to enact, no doubt with the concurrence of the authorities in New Zealand, a constitutional scheme which could not in all res-

  1021
  pects be altered by the New Zealand Legislature itself. New Zealand stood, in fact, in a rather curious position, because they had certain powers of altering their Constitution but those powers were not complete. It might be of some slight interest to your Lordships to be told that one power which they have not hitherto possessed is power to abolish the bicameral system. But there were certain respects in which, under the old law, they could change their Constitution in New Zealand. I think it is a thoroughly beneficial thing that these powers, which as a matter of form the old Parliament confers or enlarges—because it is only as a matter of form that we do it; it is really they who ask us to do it, and we willingly accept—should be enlarged.
  The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, incidentally, referred to the case of Canada. There is, of course, a difference, because the Constitution of Canada is a federal Constitution, and the British North America Act of 1867, therefore, as the Fathers of the Canadian Federation desired in their resolutions in Quebec, strikes a rather elaborate balance which makes certain that the rights of the centre and the rights of the provinces are adjusted. It follows that in the case of the British North America Act there has continued to be alteration by this House only at the request of Canada. Indeed, the powers of the Canadian Legislature to alter the Constitution are somewhat limited. In the same way in the case of Australia, which again is in the nature of a federation of States, there are provisions for altering its Constitution by Australian Act but very special conditions have to be fulfilled. That is really the difference between a federal Constitution and a unitary Constitution such as that of New Zealand.
  It just so happens that I have in the course of my life had a good deal to do with studying these things. I thought your Lordships would excuse me for adding this purely subordinate note, because when we do carry with all possible good will that which our fellow subjects of New Zealand desire, it is right that we should note in the Imperial Parliament what is the nature of the tendency which we are following. It is one about which everyone agrees. I am sure there will be found in the new Indian Constitution a power to alter their own structure. It is most remarkable that ever since 1857, ninety
  1022
  years ago, such has been the contentment with which New Zealand has lived under its existing Constitution that it has never even asked this Parliament to alter it
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  JERSEY AND GUERNSEY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  2.53 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, this little Bill originates from a change in the office of the Lieutenant Governor which took place in both Jersey and Guernsey in April last. Before the war, and after the liberation of the Islands up to the end of March of this year, the Lieutenant Governor in each island was a military officer paid from War Office funds, on which, therefore, fell most of the expenses of maintaining the office. In consequence of the decision of the War Office to withdraw all troops from the Islands (and that the appointment of a military officer was no longer necessary or justified) other arrangements for the office had to be made.
  The association of the Islands with the Crown has been historically and traditionally very close, the Islands being part of the old Dukedom of Normandy. I suppose that is why they are sometimes called "the Norman Islands." His Majesty decided that, notwithstanding that there is no longer a military establishment in the Islands, it is desirable that there should be in each of the islands of Jersey and Guernsey a resident Lieutenant Governor who should act as a representative of the Sovereign and as the channel of communication between the Island authorities and the Privy Council and His Majesty's Government. It became necessary, therefore, to come to an arrangement with the Islands about defraying the cost of maintaining the office in each Island. As a result of negotiations, conducted in the friendliest spirit, the States in each Island agreed to meet: the cost from their revenues in consideration of their being given the surplus of the Crown revenues in the Islands

  1023
  after deduction of the cost and of certain minor expenses which are incurred for maintaining the honour and dignity of the Crown. This was a very satisfactory settlement, and it accords with the arrangements made in the Colonies, all of which undertake the financial responsibility for the salary and emoluments of the King's representative and the upkeep of his official residence and office. This measure has been certified as a Money Bill, and I do not think I need add anything further. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

  BURMA INDEPENDENCE BILL.
  2.56 p.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 Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  Independence of Burma.
  1.—(1.) On the appointed day, Burma shall become an independent country, neither forming part of His Majesty's dominions nor entitled to His Majesty's protection.
  (2) In this Act, the expression "the appointed day" means the fourth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is the third "go" I have had at introducing Kills to deal with the mass of regulations which form part of the Defence Regulations. In saying that, I am not counting the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, which dealt with purposes rather than with particular regulations, but which gave rise to some little discussion between us shortly before we adjourned for our Summer Recess.
1030
When the war ended we found ourselves with a whole mass of regulations, I have never troubled to count them; but you cannot merely look at the number, because they are expanded" through A, B, and C, and so on. A vast mass of them came to an end in February, 1946; and this Government or any other Government would have had to consider how to deal. with them The first Bill I introduced, which afterwards became the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act of 1945, dealt with the regulation of supplies and services for essential goods; and that Act gave us the* right to make Orders in Council before February, 1946. It also gave your Lordships the right to pray against any order, or against any subsidiary instrument made under any order. But, in your Lordships' House no one prayed (by that I mean against the Order). None of us doubts the efficacy of a Prayer in this House; but that there was none is a tribute to the fact that we have used in a sensible and orderly manner the powers which Parliament conferred upon us.
There was some little controversy at that time whether we were right in extending our powers until December 10, 1950—which is what we in fact did—instead of having a yearly review. But your Lordships gave us that provision; and of course it is under that Act that there was passed the Order dealing with the direction of labour which has given rise to some discussion in another place recently. I merely mention these matters to show that they have no relevance to the Bill I am now introducing. When I introduced that Bill, however, I did point out to your Lordships that I should soon have to introduce another Bill to pick out from the mass of regulations then existing a series of unrelated and unco-ordinated regulations on various topics which it was necessary to continue for the time being. In accordance with that promise, or threat, I did shortly afterwards introduce a Bill which became the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. It is to amend that Act that this Bill is introduced.
When I introduced that Bill I expressed in no measured terms my intense dislike of it. I called it a "mixed grill," and I referred to the mixed grill as being of such a heat as none of the vegetarians could possibly engender. But it was, as I submitted to your Lordships, necessary that

1031
we should have it. We had some little discussion about mental nurses, and I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that we were able to dispense with that regulation before its due time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That was not concerned with the Government?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No! I remember being mildly rebuked by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, on the ground that I was being a little too gloomy about the future. I confess that then, as now, I thought the country was in an exceedingly difficult position and would have very great difficulty in maintaining anything like the pre-existent standard of living. I think that more than ever to-day. I said at that time that I hoped never again should I have to introduce such a Bill; and yet here I am at it again. That Act, the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act of 1946, extended the provisions of some sixty regulations until the end of 1947. Shortly after that Act was passed, we started a review, which has since been going on, to see how we stand with regard to this matter. I had thought about the possibility of using a device like the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and your Lordships had told me that I must be very careful of my step if I did any such thing. Your Lordships will see that your advice has been taken. I am not resorting to any such device, and I feel I want to say, with little Johnnie Horner," What a good boy am I! "It is very easy to criticize the draftsmen, as I did on the last occasion and as I could on this occasion, but, really, if you are dealing with purely unrelated matters and you have to pick out some of them, it is exceedingly difficult to see how you could do so except in the way that has been adopted.
What we have tried to do is this. We have tried to categorize the regulations—for the moment I am dealing with the Defence Regulations—to put them into three or four categories. First of all, there are those with which we can dispense, and we think we can dispense with some twenty of the sixty at the end of this year. There are some seven, I think it is, a small number, which we think we shall not want after the end of next year, and we think so because we hope that the matters with which they deal will be picked up and dealt with in a regular
1032
way by permanent legislation in the meantime. Of course, there is a risk that that cannot foe done, and, therefore, we have a provision to which I shall refer presently. But, with regard to the balance of some thirty or thereabouts, we feel quite confident that we shall want these down to the year 1950. Accordingly, we have taken as the date on which those regulations shall expire December 10, 1950, which is the date of expiry of the regulations under the 1945 Act, in order that, when that date comes, a general review of the whole position may be undertaken.
When we come to consider these various regulations and bear in mind that the date for revision will be, if this Bill is passed, December 10, 1950, it is obvious to your Lordships that that Bill for extension may be introduced either by a Conservative Lord Chancellor or a Liberal Lord Chancellor or a Lord Chancellor who combines the best qualities of both Parties, or even possibly a Lord Chancellor who is a member of the present Government. I mention that fact because your Lordships should realize that, whatever any of us say may be used in evidence against us when the time comes for reviewing this Bill in 1950.
Briefly, this Bill does eight things. Firstly, it sets out in Part I of the First Schedule those Defence Regulations which are not to be continued after the end of this year. It is quite true that those regulations would come to an end by virtue of the Act of 1946 if not now extended, but we thought it well, for purposes of clarity, to set them out specifically in this Bill. So far, I am sure that I shall have the approval of all your Lordships. Secondly, the Bill provides in Clause 1 (1) (b) that a small number of regulations shall be continued until the end of 1948, and shall then lapse. Those regulations are set out in Part II of the First Schedule. Thirdly, there are some thirty Defence Regulations, together with the machinery provisions attached to them, which are continued until December 10, 1950, by Clause 1 (1) (c). Those are set out in Part III of the First Schedule. As I have already said, we chose that date because that was the date up to which the regulations under the Act of 1945 are continued. Fourthly, a few regulations are made permanent by Clause 2, and those are set out in the

1033
Second Schedule to the Bill. If it may be thought that it is odd to make permanent provisions in what is called an Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I would point out that this Bill is merely designed to review and deal with the provisions contained in the Act of 1946.
Fifthly, a procedure is provided, by Clause 7, by which any Defence Regulation can be extended for further periods not exceeding one year at a time without fresh legislation. I may say that we should not have been able to put some of these regulations into the category which expire at the end of next year unless we had given ourselves the protection and the right of coming to Parliament and asking both Houses of Parliament to move an affirmative Address—your Lordships have it completely in your power to refuse to do so if your Lordships desire—giving us an extension if we so wish. Sixthly, the Bill also provides, in Clauses 4, 5 "and 6, for the extension of certain emergency enactments which were continued by the Act of 1946, and the repeal of others. Seventhly, provision is made in Clause 3 for the doubling of the grant which may be made for ploughing up grassland and the extension of the period for the payment of grants so as to ensure that land qualifying can be brought into production before the end of the four-year programme announced by the Minister of Agriculture on August 21 last. I should explain that this matter, like the others, is dealt with in this Bill only because the war-time Act under which the grants have been made is at present continued in force by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. Finally there are consequential provisions as to emergency legislation in the Colonies by Clause 8, and finance by Clause 9.
This Bill was accorded its Second Reading in another place without a Division. When it came to the Committeé stage, oddly enough the main point for discussion was not anything which arises under the Bill, but was, the point of the direction of labour which, as I have told your Lordships, arises under the Act of 1945. If your Lordships would be good enough to glance at the long title of this Bill, your Lordships will see that it is as follows:
"An Act to make further provision with respect to the Defence Regulations continued
1034
in force by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 "—
that is so far as Defence Regulations are concerned—
"and with respect to certain emergency and temporary enactments extended by or contained in that Act; to repeal certain other emergency enactments "—
that is, primarily concerning the Isle of Man and the internment camp on the Isle of Man—
"and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
So, if it be said—it is for your Lordships to decide these) natters—that it is necessary or relevant for us to have a debate here and now on this Bill for direction of labour you could do it equally in an attempt to repeal the Act of Union—I do not want to put nasty thoughts into the minds of our Scottish friends—or indeed on any other Act. But I suggest with all respect that the Chairman of Committees in another place, who allowed the discussion, as he said, with hesitation, on condition that it was short, was really erroneous.
Then there was some criticism of the provisions of Clause 7, that is to say, the clause which allows us to come to your Lordships and ask for an extension. If I may say so, that is not a very reasonable criticism in view of the fact that our right to get an extension depends on an affirmative Address being passed by both Houses. Then there was some criticism of the proposal to extend these regulations until December 10, 1950. With regard to that, I can assure your Lordships that we have been at great pains to make a very careful review of these regulations, and if we can repeal any of them at an earlier date than 1950 we most gladly will do so.
Now, my Lords, the difficulty of making a Second Reading Speech on a Bill which concerns a number of unrelated items is very obvious. Of course, on the Committee stage we can discuss any of them that we desire. I think those most likely to call for consideration from your Lordships will probably be Regulations 20AB, 22 and 16. I will say just a word and only a word, as to these. Regulation 20AB is the Regulation under the National Registration Act, 1939, and what it does in the main is to relax the rigour of the Act of 1939. If you do not pass this regulation then you will go back to the

1035
Act of 1939 without any relaxation, and I think you will find that, although the regulation may chastise you with whips, the Act of 1939 will chastise you with scorpions. Therefore, I would suggest that your Lordships will probably agree that it is wise to leave this regulation in.
Regulation 22 deals with billeting, a subject matter of which we should all like to see the last as soon as we possibly can. The Minister of Health has already given a most categorical pledge that the regulation will not be used either for the housing of foreign workers or for any purpose connected with the direction of labour. But there are three purposes for which, as it seems to us, we shall have to continue to use it, and, in view of the restriction of the housing programme, as far as we can see we shall have to use it for several years to come. Those three purposes are these. First of all there is a considerable number of orphan children, children orphaned by the war, who have to be housed somewhere and, at the present moment, we have to use the billeting powers in order to see that these children are properly looked after. Secondly, there are some 1,700 civil servants to be provided for. It has been an idea of mine for a very long time to try to move some of the large Government offices out of the Metropolis. I am sure that is the right thing to do, but at the present time, until the requisite Government offices can be built in places, you have to be able to billet your civil servants, and there are some 1,700 civil servants for whom we have to provide in this way., Finally there are a number of nurses, some 200 I think, who unfortunately at the present time have no nursing homes. They are doing most excellent work in various parts of the country and, in order that they can continue that work and live near the hospitals, we must continue to have resort to this Bill, the powers of which, if we find we can, as I have said, we will end earlier. Then there is Regulation 16 which has been very carefully limited. That gives power to the Minister of Fuel and Power to close the highways, for two purposes and two purposes only. One is for the purpose of open-cast working of coal which, unfortunately, remains necessary to-day, and the other is for the purpose of building generating
1036
stations. That is a summary method of doing it, and it has been used in some score of cases already.
My Lords, that is the nature of the Bill, and those are some of the matters to which your Lordships may desire to call attention. As I say, when we get to the Committee stage I shall be perfectly prepared, that is to say if I have notice beforehand, to deal with any individual regulations and to try to show your Lordships that there really is a case for extending them in the way we suggest. I claim that this Bill is a sincere and honest attempt to deal with the difficulty of getting rid of Defence Regulations by putting them into their appropriate categories, and, as I have said, I am perfectly willing to consider whether we have put any particular regulation into the wrong category. That is all I desire to say now about the Bill, except again to remind your Lordships that it received its Third Reading in another place, as it received its Second Reading, without a Division. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for giving us, as he always does, a very clear account of this proposed legislation. He made an observation at the beginning about the drafting of the Bill. I must say that, having regard to the difficulty of the subject matter, I think the drafting is very good. It is almost impossible to deal in any simple way with this mixed grill of regulations referred to in the First Schedule. I remember that when Mr. Baldwin introduced the Safeguarding of Industries Bill into the other place some years ago he referred to the Schedule as resembling a marine store dealer's catalogue. It is not the draftsman's fault, or indeed anybody's fault, that the Schedules here should consist of an extraordinary variety of matters. Picking out one or two, I notice that there is a regulation about the functions of the Chief Constable of Cornwall; and then there is a regulation about the opening of cinematograph houses on Sundays. There is a regulation about infestation by vermin, and there are regulations about illegal

1037
gaming parties and all sorts of other subjects of a miscellaneous kind.
What the draftsman has done—of course, the Lord Chancellor is responsible and, if I may be permitted respectfully to say so, he is entitled to have the acknowledgment of it—is a very sensible thing. He has tried to put the Bill in some sort of order and in Clause 1 has divided the things he is going to deal with into three categories—regulations which are not to be continued any longer (or which are to stop at the end of this year), regulations which are to last until the end of 1948 (unless, of course, Parliament does something in the meantime), and regulations which will continue until 1950. All that is an effort to sort these things out into appropriate groups. I must say, knowing a little of the labours of draftsmen and of their work, that I think it is has been very well done.
Clause 2, by its very nature, gives me some qualms, and I do not think it would be easy to find any parallel to it in our Statute Book. This clause provides that the regulations that are referred to in the Second Schedule to the Bill shall have a permanent effect. I do not like that. It seems to me odd that it should occur in a Bill called the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We all realize that during the war and, for some purposes, after it there had to be this method of making a regulation through an Order in Council, at the suggestion of a Minister, without the passing of an Act of Parliament directly dealing with it. I have always admitted frankly, within limits, that that was inevitable at the time. But to make a regulation which, of course, has never been the subject of discussion, on Second Reading, Committee or Report stages in either House, and then to say that this Regulation shall have permanent effect is, I think, a very unfortunate way of adding to the Statute Book.
I cannot help thinking that it is a pity, if we are going to enact a change in the permanent law, that we should not enact it in the proper way—I will not say in the constitutional way, but in the ordinary way, toy having an Act of Parliament to say so. That is a comment which may, or may not, appeal to others, but I make it without any sort of prejudice to anyone. I regret to think that any part of the collective Statute Law of this country, the permanent Law, should ever have to be ascertained by
1038
searching in this appalling volume of Defence Regulations. My noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, is, I am sure, most anxious to promote Statute Law revision, and I hope very much that we shall be able to get rid of this most intricate and, I think, most awkward way of changing the permanent law of the land.
The most serious comment which I have to make on the Bill, however, is not in regard to what it contains but in regard to what it does not contain. I could not help being a little amused by the efforts, the reiterated efforts, made by my noble and learned friend in his opening speech to warn us against having any discussion on Regulation 58A. I thought he went a little far when he said that in his view it would be as far away from the point as if any of your Lordships were to seek to raise a discussion about Regulation 58A in connexion with the repeal of the Act of Union. Everyone chooses his own analogy, but I would point out that Regulation 58A is a regulation made by Order in Council under authority of an Act of Parliament, and. that this Bill—though I agree it deals with Defence Regulations—is dealing with regulations made by an Order in Council under Act of Parliament. While the noble and learned Viscount is correct, if I may presume to say so, when he says that if one reads strictly the title of the Bill a regulation which owes its present force to the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, is not a Defence Regulation, I think I am still entitled to make this comment, and I hope that your Lordships, or some of you at any rate, will think it not unreasonable. If anyone had wanted to get rid of Regulation 58A for the direction of labour, nothing would have been simpler than to tell the draftsman that the Bill was to be so drawn as to include it. At any rate, it is quite obvious that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is most anxious that there should be no more reference to it than he can help. I well understand the reason
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will my noble and learned friend forgive me for interrupting him here? The long title here deals with Defence Regulations continued in force by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. Therefore this regulation is not continued in force by that Act.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am well aware of that. Moreover, I think I may safely assert that the form of the title has been most carefully drawn in order, if possible, to avoid any reference to Regulation 58A. However, there was a considerable discussion on the subject in another place, and I do not think your Lordships will feel that we should avoid it altogether. At any rate I propose to refer to it. Regulation 58A which itself, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, is a Defence Regulation, is in these terms.
The Minister of Labour and National Service … or any National Service Officer may direct any person in Great Britain to perform such services in the United Kingdom or in any British ship not being a Dominion ship as may be specified by or described in the direction, being services which that person is, in the opinion of the Minister or Officer, capable of performing."
Of course, that is a regulation included in the Defence Regulations, though at present authorized, as my noble and learned friend points out, under a different Act. But if anyone had wanted to put an end to that regulation, which I declare without fear of any future consequences, to be an abominable regulation, they could quite easily and quite usefully have done it by modifying the title and the contents of this Bill.
Let us see where we stand about this. Is there any country, except Soviet Russia or Hitlerite Germany, which has ever sought, other than in actual time of war, to direct a man or woman as to the job to which he or she is to do, as to the place in which he or she is to go to do it, and, for all I know, as to the wages which he or she is to be paid? There is not the slightest doubt in the world—any competent lawyer would stake his reputation on what I am saying—that the regulation I have just read to the House does authorize that very action, not merely by a Minister of the Crown but, what is much more surprising, by any National Service officer. And such officers are to be found all over the country; they have certain local jurisdictions. They are, if I am not mistaken, the people to whom one may apply in connexion with unemployment. There is not the slightest doubt that this regulation, for which I presume the Minister of Labour is primarily responsible, but for which the whole Government must take responsibility, is, in fact, a regulation for industrial conscription.
1040
I will not delay the House by quoting them, but it would be easy to quote endless declarations, both by Ministers and by their supporters, that they were determined against industrial conscription. But here it is. It is no answer, even if it be true, to say that it is not intended to make very extensive use of it. The point is much simpler than that. There has hitherto been a general consensus of opinion that British men and women have certain rights as individuals and that they are not in this free country to be subject to penalties as criminals if they do not obey the order of the Minister or any of his local officials to do a particular job in a particular place in particular circumstances provided the person giving the order thinks the person capable of performing it. I do not wish to use—I do not think I do habitually use in this House—unduly strong language; but is it really a misrepresentation to say that this is the introduction of a slave State? The fact that we may be assured that gentleness and moderation will be applied does not affect the position, which is laid down in these Regulations in the widest and most absolute language.
I do not wish to call anybody by hard names, but it is both interesting and illuminating to consider how closely the defence or the criticism of this Regulation calls up, as an analogy, the arguments for and against personal slavery. Let nobody suppose that there were not very good arguments advanced in defence of slavery. On the contrary. It was said," There is work essential to be done, which cannot be done unless we force our slaves to do it." The planters in our tropical islands said that nobody but their slaves could do the work, and unless they were able to force them to do it the plantations would be idle and their products would not be forthcoming. That argument was used constantly to Commissions and to Parliament, as anyone who knows the history of the subject will agree, and it was that argument which had to be. resisted over a whole generation by the reformers who got rid of the system.
And what was the argument on the other side? It was this: that apart altogether from its morality and the invasion upon an individual's own rights, this proposal was wholly ineffective to secure the result desired. Forced labour is not going to increase the productive

1041
strength of the country and you cannot, in this free land, in peace time, make people do the work you want them to do, merely because you threaten them with penalties if they do not do it. All this, indeed, is admitted by the Government and their supporters themselves. I venture a quotation. The Minister of Labour, speaking at Brighton, some time ago, said very truly that "a person who was directed was not much use to his shop, his fellows, or himself." I would give another quotation. An experienced miners' representative in the House of Commons said the other day that in the case of industry generally and the coal mines in particular, directed labour is not useful and is not likely to add to efficiency of production.
I say with great deliberation, and I hope with calmness and without extravagance, that with this Regulation deliberately preserved in this volume of Defence Regulations, whatever be the Statute under which it has been made, we really cannot congratulate the Government on their effort to clear out regulations which are no longer justified. I could quite understand a regulation made in war-time which required certain people engaged on certain work to go on doing it. I think we started with special constables and that sort of thing. We had our controversy, which I remember very well. I remember, too, the part the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, played about the compelling of women nurses in mental institutions to continue in these institutions whether they liked it or not, and your Lordships may recall with how much concern and anxiety, not limited to one side of the House, that single provision was regarded.
But this Regulation is as wide as a barn door. Not only the Minister, but any one of his subordinate National Service officers may make this order in respect of any man or woman of any age to go to any place he dictates and there to work at the work he chooses, provided, he says, that in the opinion of the Minister or the officer this person is capable of performing it. I really do not think I exceeded the licence which I know this House permits when in connexion with the Second Reading of the Bill I express my extreme regret that it had not been so framed as to get rid of that
1042
obnoxious order. Its retention is quite certainly not going to do the Government any good. And looking at it as par: of the contemporary history of our own country, I cannot say how much I deplore that we should find this Bill introduced without that most obnoxious order being here and now knocked on the head. The Government are a Government of planners. They are always planning, whether successfully or not I will not pause to inquire, but if this is planned economy, if the direction of labour is part of that planning, then the prospect for our citizens, and especially for young men and women, is bleak indeed. I quite understand the Lord Chancellor's point—I hope he will forgive me for calling it a technical point—which he made at the beginning of his speech and at the end of it. He hoped by every means, it was obvious, to escape discussion on this subject. I shall be much interested to know which member of the Government will get up and say this Regulation is justified. Let us observe which of them does it, and if none of them does it and we are fold it has nothing to do with this Bill, we shall be able to draw our own conclusions.
3.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, perhaps the most reassuring point in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, was that in which he appeared to assume that in 1950 there would still be an occupant of the Woolsack, whatever particular nuance in politics he might adopt. It appears to follow from that statement that your Lordships' House in some form will still be in being three years from now.
This Bill is on the face of it a somewhat neutral measure but it has, I think, certain mildly objectionable features, apart from the particular omission with which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, dealt. Like him, I dislike Clause 2 of the Bill. It seems to me undesirable in principle, and inconvenient in practice, that you should use a Bill of this kind in order to make permanent a very mixed collection of regulations on various matters, which anybody pursuing any of those matters in the future will need to search out before his documentation is complete. I think also, in principle, it is undesirable that a Bill of this kind should be used to increase the sphere of the Statute

1043
law by bringing in regulations in this form.
I was interested when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was making his speech to note at how early a stage of it he put up the defensive barrage in regard to Regulation 58A. For my own part, I cannot accept the argument which he advanced, that we are not entitled to say on a Bill of this kind that we are going to raise this subject, because we know that it is not included in the Bill, and we think that it ought to have been included in the Bill. Surely, when we get a long list of this kind of matters which are included, it is perfectly open to this House to say at any stage of the discussion on the Bill: Whatever we may think about what you have included, we propose to call attention to certain matters which you have excluded; matters which we think ought to be within the four corners of the Bill, and which we believe you have excluded for the very good reason that you were not anxious to have a discussion upon them.
As to the point that the title of the Bill in its present form is confined to one type of regulation which would not embrace this particular regulation, I do not think that is a very cogent argument. After all, the title of a Bill is not sacrosanct, and had it been desired to bring in this other regulation, as it should have been brought in, the draftsman would have had no difficulty in so enlarging the title as to make it applicable to this particular Regulation. The result of this Regulation being continued in existence, and not discontinued, as it should have been under this Bill, is, of course, that it is possible to introduce this system of compulsory direction of labour by means of Orders and not by means of a Bill presented to Parliament. If I understand the procedure aright, that has, from the Government's angle, an additional advantage in that you cannot amend an order, whereas you can amend a Bill. The form in which this Order has been presented certainly requires a good deal of attention and amendment, as your Lordships may have noticed from the criticisms upon the form of the latest Order by the Committee charged with inquiring into such matters in another place, who have called attention to the omissions, obscurities and lack of definition in the
1044
terms of this particular Order. Surely this Order of all Orders should have attained the highest degree of precision before it was ever presented to Parliament, because it closely affects the liberty of a great number of people.
Those of us who sit on these Benches detest the principle which lies behind these Orders for compulsory direction of labour. Sometimes one wonders What would have been the reaction of noble Lords on the other side of the House and their supporters in another place and the country, if a Government of a different colour had come to the country and said: "These steps are necessary in the interests of the country." The whole air would have reverberated with the thumping of tubs. We should have been told that this was an attempt to oppress the working class of the country; that it was sectional; that it was in the worst traditions of the evil days of the past; that it was a re-introduction of slavery—as it is—and a great many other things. Yet now they come and blandly present these measures to the House. If I may say so, it must have required something of a mental effort to adjust their minds to the new dispensation, because only at the end of May the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was informing the Labour Party Conference that they could not accept a particular resolution because "it might in some circumstances appear to indicate that we favoured the direction of labour." He went on to say: "We do not. We favour a differential wages policy." That is one of the most heavily conditional sentences that I have ever seen—" It might in some circumstances appear to indicate that we favour the direction of labour." Yet within a few months they come forward with these two orders.
It is a little interesting to look at a different document, the International Bill of Human Rights, which was presented by the Government in a White Paper from the Foreign Office in June of this year for consideration by the appropriate committee of U.N.O. If one looks at that particular document, one sees under Part II, which deals with the definition of human rights and fundamental freedoms, a not uninteresting and perhaps not wholly inapposite argument. It is Article 9, which has two numbered paragraphs, only one of which is so far completed. Paragraph I says: "No form of

1045
slavery shall be permitted." Paragraph 2 consists of square brackets, within which are the words: "A text on the subject of compulsory labour will be inserted here later." One wonders how much later, and which particular members of the Government are concerned at this moment in devising the ingenious text which is to fill up the space at present occupied by these words.
I quite realize that when they talk about compulsory labour in that context, it is meant to apply to the kind of compulsory labour which was unfortunately prevalent during the war in the countries conquered by Germany, and which took place, perhaps, in some other countries, too. But the principle is no different whether you press a man into a job under conditions of that kind, or whether you do it under a regulation of the kind which is now being brought into force. The principle is the same: you are taking away from a man the free choice of the direction in which he shall use his labour.
I do not want to elaborate this point unduly at this stage, but I think it would have been wrong if we had let this matter pass without indicating our deep regret—I do not say disappointment because I do not think we ever expected it—that the Government did not take the opportunity to remove this regulation which entitles (hem, and which alone entitles them, to make the kind of order with which the country is now being afflicted, and therefore to throw upon them the onus of bringing forward proposals of that kind with all the objectionable features which are inherent to them. The proper way would be by a Bill which could be considered in detail and at length by Parliament, and Parliament, I believe—if it were able to exercise, free from all compulsion from the Whips or anybody else, the opinion which, in their hearts all Members retain—would say that this is a deplorable backward step in the history of the country and one which we can only continue fervently to regret.
4.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, there is just one aspect of this measure which has not been fully alluded to by either of the noble Lords in their devastating condemnation of it, although the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, did just touch upon it. It is that it lies within the power of any person who
1046
has been directed to make that direction null and void, not by refusing to go where the Minister or his official chooses to send him, but by accepting the employment offered and then making himself an intolerable nuisance therein, so much so that instead of the firm and industry deriving any benefit at all by his presence, not even is he merely a cypher but he is an active encumbrance and does active harm. A clever man can so conduct himself as not to infringe the actual Statute but to make his presence in the pit, works, office or wherever he may be, such a cause of dissatisfaction to his fellow employees and such a nuisance to his employers that they will do anything to get rid of him.
That being so, the Government find themselves on the sharp horns of a very painful dilemma. Either they are prepared to see this regulation set at nought by determined people—as I have just shown it can be done—or they must be prepared to slide somewhat further down the totalitarian slope in their Gadarene descent to implement their regulations by the only possible remaining methods—namely, recourse to the concentration camp, the lash or, if need be, the execution squad. It is not surprising that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was anxious therefore, if one may most respectfully so put it, to burke discussion upon this point. It is not surprising that one who has such an acute appreciation of justice should have worn for the past few minutes an expression indicating that he is suffering from acute moral indigestion.
4.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel that I should thank your Lordships very much for the cordial way in which you have received this Bill. I have never had a more cordial welcome, because there has been no criticism at all of the Bill itself, and noble Lords have dragged in something which everybody who reads this Bill knows perfectly well—whatever may be its rights or wrongs—has nothing to do with it. That is the fact, and anybody with any sense of relevance who can read the long title can see it for himself.
I do not want in the least to burke discussion on this issue and I would be delighted to have a discussion on Regula-

1047
tion 58a and the direction of labour. If anybody would put down a Motion dealing with it I for one—and no doubt many of my colleagues—would be perfectly willing to take part in it. But my sense of order is such that I really must protest. It is no good noble Lords laughing—it is the fact. If I had been Chairman of Committees in another place, I should have unhesitatingly ruled—I cannot rule here—that the matter was out of order. As this Bill is drafted, it is drafted for a specific purpose, to bring up to date and alter a particular Act of Parliament of 1946, and it is so expressed. This subject has nothing whatever to do with the Act of 1946. It arises under a different Act of Parliament altogether, but I do not in the least want to burke discussion upon it.
If your Lordships will do me the courtesy of listening to what I say—because after all we govern ourselves in these matters and for that reason we do not want to stray from the straight and narrow path of order—if your Lordships think there is substance in what I say the only way to deal with the matter is to put down a Motion. That, I suggest, is the proper course; but whether your Lordships prefer to take this course or drag in a regulation which has nothing to do with the Act of 1946, and which would have been quite out of place in this Bill in any case, I or other colleagues would be ready to agree to discussion. So far as this Bill is concerned, I can thank your Lordships in this way, by saying that to find some criticism you had to go outside the Bill altogether.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble and learned Viscount must remember that both the noble Marquess and I took objection to the making of permanent laws by perpetuating Defence Regulations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite realize that the noble and learned Viscount is anxious to find something relevant in the Bill. He did raise that point, but he did not suggest that any one of the regulations which we seek to make permanent was not a most useful regulation. I quite agree with him that of course it is desirable in due course, and when time permits, to deal with them in the ordinary way and to pass an Act dealing with them in their appropriate place. If there is any valid criticism about any of these
1048
small matters I would take a different view altogether, but if, as I believe, everybody completely agrees that they are useful additions to our permanent law, then I say let them be until such time as we can put them into our ordinary legislation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROBLEMS OF NATIONALIZED INDUSTRY.
4.18 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKERhad the following Notice on the Order Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee, or Commission, as they think best, to inquire into the problems of devolution and decentralization in nationalized industries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I put this Motion down some time ago we have had two debates, one on the devolution of Scottish affairs and the other on the operation of the Coal Board, which have covered a good deal of the ground. I wish to begin by explaining why I have slightly changed the form of this Motion. In the Motion as originally put down there was a reference to Scotland. It said:
"… to inquire into the problems of devolution and decentralization in nationalized industries, with specific, but not exclusive, reference to Scotland."
I put it in that form after consultation with some Scottish Peers, especially with my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk, whose absence we all regret. We had a long discussion on Scottish affairs in the previous debate, and now the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has put down a Motion for this afternoon, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has put down another Motion which, so far as I understand it, advocates the discussion of Scottish Home Rule by a Commitee to be set up. I had hoped that by my Motion I might kill, or at any rate hit, two birds with one stone. But the well known perfervidum ingenium of my nation is trying to spoil discussion of my Motion and wants to have two stones at one bird—and I do not want my bird to be entirely omitted. Therefore I have taken out the specific reference to Scotland and confined my Motion to the general principle of decentralization in industry.

1049
On the Motion on the Coal Board moved last Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, we had an extremely interesting discussion, not only on the Coal Board but also on the general question of decentralization in the nationalized industries; and therefore I do not want to weary your Lordships by going over the same ground again. I want to confine myself, so far as I can, to discussing the answers which we have already had on these Motions from the Government. In the debate on Scottish affairs on November 13 the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said in the course of his reply:
"Criticism has been made in this debate of various forms of administration. Some of these forms, I would remind your Lordships, are new, and there is much to learn…. The Government are in full agreement with the view that in the management of socialized industries there should not be undue centralization "—
not a very strong statement, because there never should be anything undue anywhere! Lord Morrison went on to say:
"I hope your Lordships will agree that there is no one solution which can be applied to the variety of industries now being brought under public ownership. Each case has to be considered individually and the form of organization worked out which will enable that industry to function with the maximum efficiency and give the best service to the community. In short, the aim of the Government is to secure a proper devolution from the centre and proper machinery for consideration of local problems."
The Lord Chancellor assured us last Wednesday in the Coal Board debate that the Board were working hard at decentralization. He assured your Lordships that:
"… the Government do not approach this matter from the point of view that they have conceived a perfect plan and that they are not going to alter it. It is not our view that we are committed to a set pattern or anything of that sort. We hope to learn by experience."
When I read those remarks I am, of course, encouraged—up to a point. Are not the Government already doing what I hoped? But I am also a little discouraged and I should like to say why. Of course it is true that there should be no uniform plan of decentralization, no uniform pattern which will fit the management of coal mines, of electricity, or of transport. No one could possibly think that there was one pattern which could be worked out in detail and then be applied to all these very different things. But that does not mean that there are not certain common prin-
1050
ciples, and I view with dismay, if I understand rightly what is proposed, the prospect of each of these commissions, boards and organizations of management of the various nationalized industries, working out its pattern on its own, without any reference to what other nationalized industries are doing, without seeing that the great body of common knowledge which there is in this matter is used to the full, and without seeing also that the general social advantages and principles are not considered. They should be considered.
What I should like to see is the appointment of a central Committee. I want on that central committee people of particular and peculiar knowledge of the nationalized industries. But I also want other people. I want to have big industrialists who have had some acquaintance with the problems of devolution in large industries, problems which are common to all big industries. I also want trade unionists, and people who are concerned with the problems of local government devolution. I will explain why later. I do not want only people concerned with devolution in Scotland: I want people who are concerned with devolution in other regions—in the North East, in Yorkshire, in Wales and so on. I also want people—and I realize how revolutionary this may seem—who have experience of the theoretical side of the matter. There are such people. I should like, for example, Professor Cole, who has spent much time on such problems and made some very interesting suggestions. And I should like people from the Institute of Public Administration—people who are experts. I should like the views of these people to be pooled for the benefit of the different boards. If you do not do that you will have separate boards saying," Oh, by the bye, we must do something about devolution," and somebody of the class called, I believe," back room boys," in the different organizations may be turned on to the problem in each industry, and they will produce very different schemes. I have read recently what has been arranged with regard to the railways. I do not criticize that because I do not know enough about it, but I am disturbed that these schemes are going on and are to be developed separately without consideration of the general consequences involved.
For example, the moment you get-down to questions of this sort you will find that there are two principles on

1051
which you can devolve or divide.; You can go on the principle of difference of function, or you can go on the principle of willingness, readiness and power to co-operate in doing the job. That is one of the most vital distinctions in all problems of centralized or local government. The man on his own special job will tend, I think, to give more than proper interest to the division of functions, and lay less than proper emphasis on local patriotism and readiness to do the job, because these involve imponderables. But I feel certain that any weighty Committee going into this matter will realize how powerful an instrument for efficiency regional patriotism is, and that it will be wrong to ignore, let us say, the natural characteristics of the Welsh, the fact that York-shiremen are different from all the rest of the world, and so on. I think such a Committee would put in a general directive that there should be concern about those regional differences. If that applies to principalities like Wales, or some regions like Yorkshire, how much, a fortiori, would it be obvious folly, criminal folly, to waste the national energy, keenness and natural peculiarities of the Scottish. That consideration would follow. Therefore, you would (and this is how I would want it) hit two birds with one stone.
But I am primarily concerned with the question of the devolution of nationalized industries. I think that there should be a Committee, of the kind I have described, with all the knowledge, both practical and theoretical, that can be obtained. General directives should be given to that Committee and then, if you like—I should hope that this would be done—there should be specific Working Parties for the several industries who, inspired and directed by those general principles, would then proceed to carry them out in the different industries. If I am told that I ought not to ask for that I would reply that that is an answer which makes me tired. It is one of these hopeless "either ors ": you either deal with the specific industry or you deal with the whole principle. Everybody knows that you have to deal with both at the same time. You have to ask what effect it will have on the general social structure, what effect it will have on the working of our democracy, and—I want to say even this, if noble
1052
Lords opposite will allow me—what effect it will have on the development of Socialism.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are greatly interested.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I should like (but I will not, because time is getting on) to expound my theory of Socialism in reference to this matter. I think it would have been rather fun, because then I would have intervened in the dispute, as Lord Simon or Lord Samuel or those who sit behind them would have done, and said that I am the best Liberal. I maintain that I am the best Liberal, having been brought up in the Liberal faith. I maintain, as anybody who sees what is happening would do, that that is the way you must apply the principle of democracy to industry. If you do that, you had better sit on these Benches, but on condition that you do not think that Socialism ends with nationalization or that nationalization does the whole job. I will not continue on that point. However, I want to say very seriously to the Government, not only that they are making a mistake in regard to efficiency if they consider the separate industries one by one, by different committees under the Coal Board, the Transport Commission and so on, but that they are making a mistake if they think that this is only a question of efficiency.
Unless you can so develop your nationalized industries that you do not decrease the centres of responsible decision, but even increase them, you will be using nationalization to make worse an already serious tendency in this country which has nothing to do with nationalization. You might use nationalization to make something better. Unless you devise an active system of devolution in all the nationalized industries which gives you, along with your general control, small units where there is responsible decision, you will not deal with the other profound question with which we are confronted—namely, how to get the men to take an active part in production and show enthusiasm about it. I believe that nationalization may help in that problem, to a certain extent. I think it makes a real difference in the coal industry. The men think they are working not for the owners but for the Government as a whole and for themselves as a whole. I am sure that

1053
that is true. Nevertheless, an organization of the size of the Coal Board cannot arouse that kind of enthusiasm unless it works through small units.
May I enlarge upon those two points for a moment? We need not confine ourselves to the question of centralization at Whitehall; the tendency to crowd responsibility for decisions into London and into the City is in some ways just as wrong as the tendency to crowd it into Whitehall. I remember someone telling me a few years ago that there was nobody in Coventry who could make really responsible decisions in regard to their main industry, the motor industry; they were all made from London. I remember some years ago reading a remarkable article in the American paper Atlantic Month called "The Chain Store Mind," which explained the evil brought about by the disappearance of the local self-owned store and its substitution by the chain store, whose directives all came from New York. Individuality and local responsibility were disappearing and in every city there was the same sort of store in the same pattern and with the same sort of shop window, directed by people in New York who knew nothing, and perhaps cared less, about the local situation.
One of the advantages of nationalized industries is that it is in our power to shape them, and I think a wise and thorough plan of decentralization may go some way to curing this evil. If it did, it would make all the difference in the world, not just to the efficiency of the industries, but to the vitality, to the responsibility and to the health of local government generally, not merely in Scotland but all over the country. Therefore, I pray the Government to take this proposition of mine really seriously. I am not in the least suggesting that the Government are not in earnest about decentralization, for they clearly are, but, if I am right in my reading of the reply given by my noble friend Lord Morrison, they are proposing to do what I have suggested—namely, to have separate committees within each board. I do pray the Government to consider the other possibility, for both efficiency and democracy depend on the multiplication of centres of responsible decision all over the country.
Decisions about personal relations should depend upon those who make the
1054
decisions knowing personally that they can be effective. Decisions on technical questions should depend on knowing details and seeing for oneself on the spot. If you have to make decisions on a large scale, whether in Whitehall or in London or in the City, you go by rules, and you can decide only by the rules of the whole organization. The reason why I plead for a Committee with experts upon it, a central Committee where knowledge should be pooled, is that it is a great mistake to think that decentralization is an easy business. It is a very complicated business, and we need for it all the practical wisdom and also all the theoretical knowledge that we can obtain. That is what I want to urge the Government to do: to appoint a Committee—not a Commission, for that would take too long—roughly on the lines I suggest, let them work out the principles and give a general directive, and then allow Working Parties from each of several industries to work it out in detail. I beg to move for Papers.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, has returned to the charge on this matter. It is quite true that only a week ago we had a debate on the organization of national boards and we had from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor a vary interesting and informative reply on behalf of the Government. But, apart from the interesting questions which the noble Lord has raised in his speech today and which I think were only partially covered in our debate, one very important thing has happened. Since we had our debate and the reply of the Government last Wednesday, the Transport Commission has issued the whole of its new plan for the organization of railway transport throughout this country. Frankly, that is why I intervene. I am not going to repeat the speech I made last time, with which the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor also, as he said in his speech, were in full accord. What has alarmed me, however is that the new plan announced by the Transport Commission seems most seriously to violate those very principles which I ventured to put forward and which the Lord Chancellor most emphatically endorsed.

1055
I put to the Government four propositions with which, as I understood it, they were in complete agreement. I am not going into the question of nationalization or going to debate its merits at all now, but, judged by all standards of business or administrative efficiency, an organization to work the whole of the coal mines of this country, or the whole of the railways plus a great mass of other transport, is much too big. I do not want to press that, because the Lord Chancellor said he most cordially agreed. My second proposition was that, that being so, you must have effective decentralization, a proposition to which Lord Lindsay has lent us his experience and support today. The third proposition was that we must try to get comparative and competitive standards of efficiency within this unified monopoly. The fourth point was that we must avoid like the plague any sealed pattern—and no one was in greater agreement than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack about avoiding a sealed pattern—and give to the regional boards the fullest power to try out their own ideas and to exercise their initiative.
I will quote only a word or two from my own speech, because I was interrupted most courteously by the Leader of the House, indeed, in almost a running commentary, to tell me that I was pressing at an open door. He kept on saying "We agree." What I said was this. It is in Column 976:
" Give the local men real responsibility, and encourage them to try out their own ideas. By all means let the Central Board watch and compare the results, and pool the experience. That is one of the things it is there for. But let the Board also remember that the same plan is not necessarily the right plan everywhere and at all times. What may appear at the centre to be a uniform business, in fact has great variety depending on local conditions."
Then the noble Viscount said across the table "But, of course, we agree." I then went on to say:
"I am glad this is agreed, but I believe there is a great tendency to centralize and to send out these sealed pattern instructions from the centre"—
and I think he shook his head. I went on to say:
" I shall be delighted if I am told that it is not so. I shall be delighted to hear that the practice is to be real delegation of responsibility and a real chance to these people to do their own jobs. I am perfectly certain that if
1056
we are to give the best to our customers, and the boards are to get the best out of their staffs, we must not seek to impose this uniformity upon them."
Then I said, because I was again challenged, in regard to this uniformity:
"I am certainly not inventing these complaints about uniformity. I hope that it is not the intention to impose it, and that it will certainly not be the practice."
I certainly can have no complaint about the reply of the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Government. In Column 981, he said:
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggested that the organization was too big. I quite agree; and the fact that it is so big makes it absolutely necessary that we should have a system of decentralization."
Then he goes on to say:
" This shows, I think, that the National Coal Board, in setting up these organizations, were alive to the fact that a sealed plan is a quite hopeless conception on which to work. Therefore in their proper sphere these divisional boards must have full responsibility for their functions."
So far as that went, I am bound to say I thought it a very satisfactory answer. I did ask how this was going to apply not only in coal but also in the even bigger organization of transport, and to that I received no answer. I do not complain; perhaps the Lord Chancellor was not instructed. But obviously if that effective decentralization is right in coal, which has infinite variety in the different coalfields, in the character of coal and in the salesmanship of coal, whether to the domestic user of a hundred different kinds or for export, is it not right in transport, which is perhaps even more varied? If you sit at the centre it looks as if coal is just coal and a railway wagon is just a railway wagon. That is not the way in which you give service; everything wants its own particular needs met.
I hoped, and indeed I expected, that when we came to transport we should get more effective devolution than we have in coal, although I honestly believe—at least I hope this is so—that the Coal Board is trying to get more effective devolution and to give more and more responsibility, not only to the regional boards but to the area managers. I am sure that is the only way, and I believe it is the intention. I believe it is what the Government mean, and what the Coal Board wish to do; but, frankly, I was horrified when I saw the

1057
new plan under which the railway transport of this country is to work. Although the Transport Commission have not yet taken over this long distance or semi-long distance or semi-short distance road transport—I do not know when they will or whether they will—these things have got to be worked in together in the regions. It is quite absurd to say that you are going to run a railway from Euston by one department, and the road transport between Liverpool and Manchester, or between Edinburgh and Glasgow, by some quite isolated body which communicates only by minutes or by letter with them.
I am not going to deal with road transport because that is still in the lap of time. There is, however, this new railway organization. On the face of it, it looked as if there was a system of devolution. We had this some time before. First of all the Transport Commission was set up, and then we had the Railway Executive which is under the Transport Commission. That is a tremendous hierarchy. The Papacy is hardly more hierarchically organized throughout the world. This business is getting almost as big as the Catholic Church. But there is the Transport Commission. That is the first thing. Then there is the Railway Executive which comes under it, but I will not criticize that. It consists of a chairman and six full time functional members each with a different functional responsibility. I have not the prejudice that some people have against functional people on boards; that is, provided that they are not too functional or too narrow.
I do not think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, or even myself—and I hope, generally speaking, we were not bad members of the Cabinet—when we had big Departments of our own, were guilty of putting forward quantities of matters of detail. We tried to take not too departmental a view when sitting in the Cabinet. Also we did not bring up "tin-pot" questions to the Cabinet for decision, I would have liked to see in the Railway Executive a few more people who were not purely functional. I think that would have been useful. What I am anxious about are the regional boards which have now been established for the railways. On the face of it, they look all right. Six of them have been
1058
established and they correspond roughly to the four main-line railways. The Southern is one; the Great Western is another. The London and North Eastern is now split into two areas; and then there is the London, Midland and Scottish, less Scotland. Scotland, I am glad to see, is given a region.
The scheme sounds all right but it is not, because the boards have not adequate powers. There are regional functionaries sitting in Edinburgh or Glasgow to do what they are told to do by Whitehall, with no adequate powers of their own. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, when he replies, will be able to allay some of our anxieties on this matter, because it is not at all in line with what we were assured by the Lord Chancellor was to be done. The essence of the constitution of these regional boards should be that they should have a very wide discretion and very full powers. They should be able to serve the public with a knowledge of local conditions. They should not be uniform and above all they should be able to try out their own ideas and then let the Central Board see low these different ideas work, one board trying one system and another board trying another. It might well be that something of considerable value would come out of this conflict of ideas. Something might be found that would be quite applicable to local conditions in one place although it would not be, perhaps, in another. The essence of this devolution, of these interregional boards, is that they should have real regional responsibility and be able to use local knowledge and local experience. But they are not to have that.
Just observe how these regional boards are established. In each of these regions there is to be set up, I think, six officials, each of whom will have his different functions. There will be public relations, passenger, freight, commercial, operating, marine and civil engineering, mechanical supervision, and so on, corresponding exactly to the functional executives on the Railway Executive. And observe to whom those people are to be responsible. They are not to sit as a board, considering local conditions, working out their own local plans to meet local needs. Each one of those functionaries, directors on a regional board, is to be responsible to his opposite number at headquarters in

1059
Whitehall. Really that is not devolution at all. All that means is that a functionary is placed in Manchester or in Glasgow, or wherever it may be, and that functionary is used in the field to carry out orders from Whitehall.
I shall probably be told that there is a gentleman called, I think, a chief regional officer in each of those regions. His function is to be to secure that the policies laid down, and the general instructions issued by the Executive (that is, the Executive in London), are made effective. I had hoped that he was to be a more or legs independent chairman, who would draw these members of the local boards together and encourage them to use their initiative and their ideas. So far as I can see his principal function is to be to look into things. He is to be a snooper, curiosus, a gentleman who has to see that directives and instructions are carried out. I am not even paraphrasing, I am giving an exact quotation from what has been issued by the Executive. Observe, too: the local members of the six regional boards are not responsible to him; they are responsible to the individual officers of the Railway Executive in London. Can anyone say that that is real devolution or real delegation? I must be fair, however. The-regional officer is also to receive a copy of each directive sent down from headquarters to the offices of his region. No doubt that is advisable for his information, but it seems to me to have a sinister significance.
Instructions are to come from Whitehall. What are those instructions? Of course they will be on the sealed pattern—the very thing the Lord Chancellor said last time that we must avoid like the plague. There is no Party politics in this. For better or for worse—I think for worse—we have nationalized these industries. We have nationalized coal, and I believe that the coal people are making a genuine effort to delegate responsibility. Now we have just nationalized railways and the new authorities have had very little time to take over. We have got to try to make this thing work. The whole prosperity of industry and of the country depends on coal and transport. I am sure the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will believe me when I say that I am not trying to make any Party point out of this. If we must have this
1060
form of control let us make it work. The Lord Chancellor agrees that in this way—that is, this working on the sealed pattern principle—lies absolute disaster. Yet, so far as I can see, within a day of the Lord Chancellor saying that he could not agree more with what I said about the sealed pattern (he almost said that it was "damnation" but I think he actually used a more suitable expression," anathema") we have before us this new railway organization in which all the principles laid down by the Lord Chancellor, which the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, has appealed to the Government to carry out, seem to me to be completely set at naught.
We have no time in connexion with this matter for committees of inquiry. There are the Ministers and the Government; if they agreed last time that what I enunciated are the right principles I beg them to say so. This is a matter in which Ministers ought to intervene. It is not a matter of day-to-day management. It is a matter concerned with the whole principle on which the business is going to work. I beg the Government to intervene before it is too late. My noble friend quoted Mr. Herbert Morrison and that made a great appeal to the Lord Chancellor, but I have read other words said more recently by perhaps a less influential member of the Government. "Bigness is the enemy of humanity." That was said by a lesser light, perhaps, of the Government—I am not quite sure how they rank to-day—by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, and it is pretty true, though I do not quite know how the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, would reconcile that with the philosophy of Socialism.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: Easily.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will not argue. I think bigness often is the enemy of humanity. Certainly in bigness we have always got to see that whatever merit it brings we keep the human touch. Excessive size is certainly the enemy of public service. I argue this once more because this is something beyond all Party politics, something on which not only the success of coal and transport but of industry, which depends on them, depends. I believe that in the teeth of what the Lord Chancellor told us last week—and of course he was sincere, and of course that was what the Government meant to be the policy—exactly the

1061
opposite policy is being carried into effect. I do beg the Government to intervene before it is too late.
5.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships must feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, for continuing this discussion on a rather different plane from that which occupied your Lordships last week. Your Lordships are aware of the interest which the noble Lord has taken in this matter. I think it was during the Report: stage of the Transport Bill that he pointed out that this was a matter of considerable difficulty and importance, the problem of reconciling the broad issue of nationalized industry with the local interests and patriotism of the people who are actually working in the field. He did even at that stage suggest that some sort of committee of inquiry might be desirable. I think he reflects the interest in this matter which is very general throughout the country and which your Lordships have evinced from time to time. He pointed out in his speech that this was a matter which had been very much discussed in the past and that a good deal of work has been done on it.
The Government are very well aware of this. Throughout the preliminaries to the measures which Parliament has been placing on the Statute book over the last month, the Government have had in mind this very problem and they have it very much in mind at the present moment. That was made clear in a number of speeches which have been made on behalf of the Government in your Lordships' House and elsewhere over the last weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, referred to my noble friend Lord Morrison's remarks in your Lordships' House, and particularly to the remarks of my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, in the discussion on the Coal Board last week, in which he laid it down very emphatically that "decentralization is to be the rule and centralization is to be the exception." The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the speech which he made last week, referred a great deal to the interesting lecture given by Sir Arthur Street. In that lecture Sir Arthur Street, after comparing the problem of administering coal with the rather different problem of administering electricity, said that the idea in the arrangements con-
1062
tained in the two Acts is "to decentralize as much as possible in the interests of flexibility and efficiency."
This matter, then, has been very much in mind throughout, but of course we must: not go too far in that direction. Obviously unification is inherent in the whole idea of socialization, and it is only in such unification that elimination of waste and overlapping can be secured. One of the main objects, I may say the fundamental object, in introducing nationalization is in order to obtain the elimination of waste and overlapping and the integration of these services in the national interests. That involves a considerable element of central control. The problem really is to establish a just balance between the amount of control needed in the centre and the amount of devolution which is essential in order that the industries may be properly worked and administered in the field. In a later passage in his lecture, Sir Arthur Street brings that out very clearly. Obviously without devolution and decentralization you will get an excessive bureaucracy, and the elasticity of the whole business is lost; a very great deal of the advantages of socialization is lost also. As was indicated by my noble and learned friend, the methods cannot be laid down in detail in Statutes.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, has said he would be tired if he were told that conditions differ from one industry to another, but of course, quite obviously they do so. The framers of the Statutes had very clearly in mind the different amounts of devolution and different types of devolution which might be necessary in different industries. I will not trespass on your Lordships' patience, but if I had the time to make a detailed analysis of the different Statutes which have been passed, I could very easily show that the draftsman had these matters very much in mind, because according to whether one is dealing with coal, or transport, or electricity, a different kind of devolution is envisaged in broad framework in the Act. Within each industry the practical problems of devolution differ very considerably. The working out: of details is the business of management. All that the Statute can do is to provide the broad framework. This problem will be solved in the light of experience. It will be a case of solvitur ambulando.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: As he is coming to it, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? Can he tell us what is the meaning of this new transport scheme which was announced after we concluded our debate last Wednesday?
LORD CHORLEY: We have listened to the noble Viscount's speech with great interest, and, naturally, I shall deal in due course with the matters which he has brought to the attention of your Lordships. At the moment I am doing my best to deal with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, whose Motion is before your Lordships' House at the present time. Of these boards the only one which has actually operated is the Coal Board and, as your Lordships know, we had a very interesting and useful discussion last week largely centring round the work done by the Coal Board. My impression after listening to the debate—and, indeed, it is borne out by the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord'Swinton—was that, on the whole, there was satisfaction with the work of the Coal Board, and it was felt that the Board were making not only a genuine effort, but very largely a successful effort, to deal with the devolution of the administration of the coal industry.
A very impressive speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison of Montrose, who has not the reputation of covering his pills with too much jam, in which he said that he was very satisfied with the way in which the regional board in Scotland was doing its job. He went on to say:
" From what I hear, It is not being unduly interfered with by the Central Board in London: it functions well."
Coming from such a source, obviously that is an expression of satisfaction which carries a great deal of weight. I think if noble Lords were not so suspicious they might gain confidence from what has happened there that a similar successful effort will be made in other branches of nationalized industry, when they get to work, to solve the problem equally well.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in his interesting opening speech, made it perfectly clear that the questions would have to be dealt with as the events marched forward. Again, Sir Arthur Street, in the lecture which has been referred to so much, pointed out that: "The kaleidoscope is changing all the time. The com-
1064
plex patterns are reforming and rearranging themselves before our eyes." Obviously, it would be quite wrong to attempt to lay down any sealed pattern method of dealing with this problem of decentralization. If I may say so, it seems to me, as one academic to another, that the proposal of the noble Lord to set up a committee which would attempt to lay down some general principles for dealing with this problem of devolution would be sinning against that very principle of waiting to see how the thing will, in fact, develop in practice. A policy cannot be in vacuo. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the debate last week, pointed out, very cogently, I think, that policy is very largely derived from action. He said: "You cannot separate policy and action. Policy issues from action."—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: "In action." It was wrongly reported. "Policy issues in action." Your action is motivated by your policy.
LORD CHORLEY: The policy develops, so to speak, as the action goes along. That is what I understood.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. With great respect, I was wrongly reported. I used the words—I trust they were good English—" Policy issues in action." That is to say, you cannot separate one from the other. Policy must inform and direct action.
LORD CHORLEY: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the elucidation of his speech. Surely, it must be obvious that the sort of rules for dealing with this matter must be discovered empirically as the matter develops. To lay down a pattern now, before most of these boards are under way, would be to manufacture an administrative strait-waistcoat which would be exceedingly cramping to the very industries which the noble Lord is anxious to see developing and working on the ground. After a period of experiment it may well be possible to deduce certain working rules of a character which can be generally applied, but at the present time I suggest to your Lordships that it would really not be possible to do so at all satisfactorily. To lay down mandatory rules for local organization would be to destroy the confidence of the managements of the industries at the very time when it is essential that they should feel they are free to work out their own difficulties.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is what the railways have done.
LORD CHORLEY: I suggest that, in those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to set up a committee to try and discover, from discussions which had gone on in the past, a number of rules which could be applied to coal, to transport and everything else. It may be that after the thing has worked for a time it will be possible to set up a committee, or that the administrators themselves will discover that there are certain rules which can be applied in that way.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has suggested that the arrangements which have been announced by the Transport Commission in regard to the organization of the railways is an infraction of the principles so very emphatically accepted by my noble and learned friend in the debate last week. I suggest that that is a completely wrong view of the matter. The whole object of the announcement made by the Transport Commission is, in fact, to establish a system of devolution which can work successfully. The noble Viscount suggests that the regional officers are just snoopers; that the Central Authority has sent them out into the six different zones in order to provide themselves with material on which they can keep their local officers in order. Nothing is further from the truth. These regional officers will be empowered to settle regional matters at regional level, and they will be given the necessary power of initiation of action to secure that that is done.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: To whom will the members of the local board be responsible? Will it be the chief regional officer, or to the gentlemen in London?
LORD CHORLEY: As I understand it, the functional officers, to whom the noble Viscount refers, will be responsible to the functional officers in London. But that does not mean that a very considerable devolution of power is not conferred upon them. The noble Viscount, as a business man, knows very well that if he sends his agent to establish a business, whether it is abroad or in Scotland or anywhere else, he confers greater or less powers of initiative upon him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has referred to me and challenged me on
1066
that. I am quite accustomed to sending people abroad but I have one rule, which is this: if there are people given an office abroad I put them under my man abroad and make them responsible to him; they are not responsible to somebody at headquarters here. That is the whole policy of this scheme. They are not responsible to the nominal chief.
LORD CHORLEY: But the man abroad is carrying out the noble Viscount's policy, and the question of how much local initiative he is given depends upon the noble Viscount. Knowing the noble Viscount as we know him, I am sure he would give the man a considerable amount of initiative. But the mere fact that the man reports to the noble Viscount does not mean that there is no devolution and that the whole thing is a sealed pattern. It may very well be, and no doubt will be, that the conditions in Scotland, where the whole of the Scottish railway system will be organized in one zone will be quite different from conditions in. shall we say, the North of England and again different from conditions in the West. It is, in those circumstances, a different type of discretion which will be conferred upon the different officers in Scotland and the North or West, as the case may be. Just as the regional officer will be given that amount of initiative and discretion which is required to deal with the problems that aria; in the region for which he is responsible, so will these functional officers be given initiative in the same way. That, as I understand it, is the organization which the Traffic Commission is setting up. The noble Viscount gave me No 1ndication that he was going to raise this particular matter and I am not further armed with material—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I always try to give notice and I must say that I did raise the whole of this question in my speech a week ago, when I definitely asked what was going to be the transport organization and what was going to be the delegation. Immediately after that this Government announcement: was made, and therefore I not unnaturally assumed that as the noble Lord had been given a week's notice he would be in a position to deal with the Government's own policy.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not in any way complaining of the noble Viscount's action upon that. All I am saying is that

1067
I have attempted to reply in a genera] sort of way, and I am not in a position to give a greater amount of detail than that which has been publicly announced by the Transport Commission. I have attempted to give an interpretation of that, which I suggest to the House is perfectly consistent with a substantial and necessary degree of devolution being carried through in the organization of the railways, and which will be worked just as successfully as it is agreed devolution is being worked in the coal industry and as is being provided for in the electricity industry under the Electricity Act.
I suggest that it must be perfectly clear from what I have said to your Lordships that the Government have this matter very closely in mind indeed, that they have given great thought to the matter in the past, have provided for the general framework of it in these Acts of Parliament and will continue to keep the matter closely under observation. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, that it would not be appropriate at this time to set up the kind of committee for which he asks, and in those circumstances I hope that he will withdraw his Motion for such a committee.
5.26 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I only want to say that I am profoundly disappointed by the answer I have been given. I hope noble Lords opposite will never again reproach representatives of this Government for being too concerned with a priori methods. Any greater apotheosis of the general doctrine of muddling through I have never heard in my life. I am all for being empirical and I am all for regarding the facts, but it is worth having a plan. After all, if we are going to have organization of this kind it has to have a structure. You cannot say: "Let us have no structure; let us start the trains, see what happens and we will make one as we go along." That is not good enough.
Again, I must just reiterate my points about the Committee. If it is true, as I fear it is true, that each separate board or commission is going to work out its own plans of devolution and decentralization, it is very gratifying to suppose that there is so much wisdom in all the departments of the Civil Service that every
1068
single one is able to give a satisfactory answer to this most difficult problem. I do not believe it for one moment. I think there are such things as principles, which are quite different from sealed patterns. I am sure that a great deal could be done, and it would not take very long—you could have a committee which could report very quickly—to pool all the wisdom. Of course, if there are persons in the Government who, like Sam Weller, have the sort of eye that can see everything, hear everything and know everything, that is all very well, but it is not the case. As I said, I should feel better if the people in the Government who are carrying out these plans would even meet together and get some general principle. There is this knowledge, this experience, and it had better be used. If I may be allowed to say so, I should like the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, put on this. As he gets up from time to time and explains about almost every form of organization that he has worked, I am, like the people in the hymn," lost in wonder, love and praise."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not quite sure about the first line.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I do pray the Government to think better of this. Of course you have to go ahead, and of course you have to recognize that things are different, but that does not mean going on if you think differently, otherwise you may easily get schemes which will have desperate social effects. I am more concerned in some ways—because I know more about it—about the further social effects of all this business, than perhaps the efficiency inside, about which I do not know. I am alarmed at the thought of all these separate boards sitting down individually and not considering the whole thing together. If the Government will not do that, I can only regret it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS.
5.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKhad given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the strong Scottish feelings in the matter, they are now prepared to agree to the appointment of a representative Committee of Inquiry to investigate

1069
and make recommendations for effective devolution of control and administration in Scotland; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, unfortunately I was not here at the beginning of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, having been called out of the House. I would like to say to him that I am under an obligation to him for having altered the words of his Motion and having eliminated from it the specific reference to Scotland. If I may say so, I think that was a very useful act on his part because we have at least the Scottish demand for devolution on its own axis and not mixed up with the rest of the United Kingdom, and also on a far broader basis, as is desired by Scottish people.
On November 13 I had a Motion on the Order Paper stating that the Scottish people were demanding a form of devolution which would give greater control over their local affairs and for this purpose they desired a representative Committee of Inquiry to be set up in order to investigate the facts of the situation and to make recommendations as to what form that devolution should take. The Government reply to that Motion was:
"The Secretary of State for Scotland … is fully conscious of the feeling in Scotland regarding the desirability of a more intimate control by Scotland over its own affairs, and he is pursuing his inquiries into the possibility of action as a matter of urgency."
After considering that reply I withdrew my Motion. I expressed satisfaction with the Secretary of State's assurance, so far as urgency of decision was concerned, but dissatisfaction that I had received no reply regarding the inquiry. I further said that there was a most insistent demand in Scotland for such an inquiry and that I would put down my Motion again on this date. Hence my Motion to-day.
Following the debate on November 13 many views were expressed in regard to the form of devolution that might be established in Scotland, but there was one unanimous expression of opinion; and this was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. It was the demand for a representative Committee of Inquiry to investigate all the facts and to make them known throughout Scotland, and at the same time to have from that inquiry recommendations as to the best form which that devolution could take. My Motion to-day is asking that same ques-
1070
tion: Will the Government set up a representative Committee of Inquiry as soon as possible? All Scotland desires it and is asking for it, and is becoming exceeding restless and resentful because nothing has been done.
At this moment I would like to interpolate a few remarks regarding a question that was put to me to-day: "How is it that the Scottish Nationalists, when they put up at by-elections or General Elections, always forfeit their deposit? "There is a very simple answer to that. In the first place the Scottish Nationalists are extremists who desire separation between the two Kingdoms. The people whom I suggest I am representing here to-day, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and others, do not desire separation. They want a form of devolution—I agree there is a difference of opinion as to what form—which will give Scotland greater control over her local affairs. They ask for nothing more to-day. They do not want anything more. Therefore, when a Scottish Nationalist puts up at an Election, the electors naturally do not vote for him; they do not want separation. They know that if they vote for him they are voting for separation. But as the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said the other day, we do not want an "iron curtain" across the Border between the two countries.
What I want to ask, this being the case, and if I have clarified the situation, is this: What have Scotsmen done to be treated in the way they are being treated to-day? When will England realize that we are not a province of England, hut a Kingdom which once gave you a King.
LORD CALVERLEY: Yes!
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: When will you really recognize that? A Crown Colony like Ceylon in the Indian Ocean demands an inquiry—and she receives two inquiries in the space of about twelve years. I happened to be in Ceylon, as a visitor, during the first inquiry. There was a more recent inquiry, over which the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, presided. What was the result of these two inquiries? British Dominion status under the Crown. Scotland if not demanding to be a Dominion, but she is demanding an inquiry. If the Government will give Ceylon, a small Colony in the Indian Ocean, an inquiry into her affairs of

1071
government, surely the Government should be prepared to give a similar inquiry into Scottish affairs. I conclude by saying this. I want the Government to realize—and I am not saying this in any menacing spirit—that the heather is now on fire and will remain so until the inquiry we are asking for is granted. I venture to suggest—and this is a matter which the Government should take very carefully into consideration—that if too much time elapses before this happens it is quite certain that the devolutionary demands of the Scottish people are likely to expand and grow and to exceed those with which she would be content to-day. I beg to move for Papers.
5.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, in any inquiry that may be instituted into the further devolution of Scottish administration, full consideration will be given to the advisability, or otherwise, of some degree of representative self-government; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I say what I have to say on the present Motion, rather than to inflict another Motion upon your Lordships this afternoon. With all that my noble friend Viscount Elibank has said, except for one small point, I am in complete agreement. I think that he went a little far in assuming that all those who stand as Scottish Nationalist candidates desire to separate the two countries with an iron curtain. The trouble with the Scottish Nationalist movement always has been, and remains, that few Scottish Nationalists are agreed upon how far they want to go. There are quite a number who wish to see a representative Government set up in Scotland but who are completely opposed to any form of iron curtain. In fact, I think the advocates of such an iron curtain are very small in number and probably comprise that same exiguous proportion of the Scottish population that has feelings of animosity against Englishmen as such.
There exist in Scotland to-day no such feelings of animosity; there is, however, a great deal of animosity towards the present system of practically unlimited control from Whitehall. An improvement certainly took place when St. Andrew's
1072
House was instituted, and certain functions of government were transferred there. But the fact unfortunately remains that even after these improvements have taken place, the Secretary of State for Scotland remains virtually a manager, working for a far distant proprietor, and a proprietor who, in many cases, does not take the interest in his property that he ought. Furthermore, Scotland feels very strongly that she is not the property of England.
I worded my Motion rather carefully and very generally, the reason being that I want to make it perfectly clear that its acceptance by the Government and by your Lordships' House would not involve either of the Parties concerned in any approval of the principle of Scottish self-government. All that it does ask is that if, as I hope will be the case, an inquiry is set up on the lines desired by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, the terms of reference should specifically include consideration of the advisability or otherwise of some form of representative self-government. I stress the words "some form of representative self-government "because I am trying to make it as broad as possible in order to try to secure general agreement. I think, indeed I am sure, that if an inquiry is set up without some such inclusion in its terms of reference, it will be bitterly resented in Scotland, even by many of those not in favour of such self-government but who would be resentful that the people of Scotland or their leading citizens were not to be consulted as to the future form of government of the country.
As regards my own position, I have hitherto been of the opinion that on the whole Scotland might lose more than she would gain by such representative self-government. I am not, however, very certain that I shall hold that opinion much longer. One of the remarkable facts that emerged during the Coalition Government was that although the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Johnston, was a Socialist, and had been—if he was not still—one of very-decided opinions, he possessed the confidence and trust of the people of Scotland, irrespective of class or Party, to a greater degree than any Secretary of State for Scotland in this century—if not, indeed, since the institution of that office. I think it was universally regarded as a calamity for Scotland when it became

1073
known that Mr. Johnston's decision to give up all political life was irrevocable. Scotland feared that she would not have looking after her interests in future a tighter with such robust qualities. That, unfortunately, proved to be true; for however admirable the qualities of Mr. West-wood (and they were many) they did not include a capacity for standing up to his Cabinet colleagues in expressing the desires and rights of Scotland in any forcible degree. Scotland also felt uneasy because she really had nobody to express her views in the Cabinet. There was not one single Scotsman a member of that Cabinet. Mr. Westwood, although resident in Scotland for a considerable period, was not of Scottish birth.
To-day we should look for a moment or two at the main ways in which self-government would affect the country. There are many such ways, but I will allude to only four: administration, culture, economics and politics. On the question of administration, I think there is practically universal agreement that, whatever might be the disadvantages of Scottish Home Rule, from an administrative point of view it would be an almost unmitigated advantage. From a cultural point of view, too, the balance would definitely tip in the direction of self-government. It is when one comes to the exceedingly difficult question of economics and politics that one does not yet know—at least I have not decided—which way the scale would tip. It would be necessary to be extremely careful not to upset the intricate and delicate economic relationships between the various parts of Great Britain. It would be equally essential that, whatever the form of sell-government, it should not be of such a character that the unfortunate aggregation of humanity in the central part would be able completely to dominate the cultural, political and economic life of the rest of Scotland.
Whatever may be decided eventually as to the merits of all these arguments, I submit that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has put forward an unanswerable case for an inquiry. I submit to your Lordships that such an inquiry should, as I have said, include definitely a reference to the question of Scottish self-government, that it should be gone into and looked at from every point of view, from the point of view of the people of Scotland as well as from the point of
1074
view of the people of England and the people of Northern Ireland, and that no hasty and rash decision one way or the other should be arrived at until such a Committee have reported in full and their findings have been carefully considered.
5.48 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I intervene for a few minutes as an Englishman to support the proposals of the two noble Lords. I think that a case has been made out for an inquiry, and I am strengthened in that view because, being a member of the Royal Commission on the Administration of Justice in England and Scotland, I had the great privilege of listening for five long days to evidence from all over Scotland about the appointment of certain officers in the law and particularly in the administration of justice. Of course, it would be improper for me to state any conclusions of my own with regard to what might be the findings of that Royal Commission, but certainly the evidence was given in public and I came to the conclusion that there was a psychological sense of grievance in Scotland that they were not having a square deal.
They appreciated the fact that it was the first time that a Royal Commission had gone to Scotland. We went to Scotland rather than invite them to come to London, and every one of the witnesses appreciated that fact. I think that there is a sense of remoteness, notwithstanding that the English taxpayer has built that beautiful St. Andrew's House, which may be a monument of efficiency or may serve to emphasize the remoteness of Edinburgh from Whitehall, and also of Edinburgh from the Highlands. Listening to the evidence of some of the people from the North of Scotland, I thought that this sense of remoteness did make this problem difficult. I agree entirely with the two noble Lords who have preceded me that I could sense a feeling of resentment much of which was unjustified but which could be dangerous. What might be a fancied grievance could be nursed into a hot resentment, and such a condition is dangerous.
I was going to mention the fate of Nationalist candidates in Scottish elections, but that is no fair test and we cannot afford to exploit the tolerance and the forbearance of folks with strong Scottish backgrounds. We cannot afford to

1075
neglect that feeling that they are not whole-hoggers. I hope and trust that we shall move in time to prevent them from becoming whole-hoggers, because a Scotsman can have a proper pride in being a Scotsman, and the good Lord knows he has got plenty of that. Scotsmen have got a great sense of their own identity compared with the humble Englishman.
A Noble Lord: Humble Yorkshire-man.
LORD CALVERLEY: Therefore, if they can have candidates putting up at the universities as Nationalists and inflaming Scottish youth into believing that this is a real grievance, it could become a danger in another generation, or earlier. I shall ever remember the almost too moderate requests of Irish Nationalism. We see that to-day. Some of us saw it long ago. I remember a distinguished gentleman of the name of the Master of Elibank who did. We repulsed what was a reasonable request, and we have seen the result and the sequel. I hope that this Government will agree to a Committee, not all Scotsmen, to act in a judicial capacity. There were one or two Scotsmen on our Commission, but the majority were Englishmen. We went there in a judicial capacity and I am certain that the people of Scotland, when they see our Report, will say that we did a mighty fine job of work.
Viscount Elibank could not refrain from referring to the present to England of a Scottish king. If he is referring to James I of England and James VI of Scotland, well, we Englishmen have to accept all that we can get either from Scotsmen or anybody else. The only good thing that James I did was when he sent a message to Edinburgh from Holyrood, "Send 10,000 brogues to London." The message was misquoted in the transcript and when it was received it said: "Send 10,000 rogues." They got as far as Yorkshire and stayed there, and that is the reason for Yorkshire's greatness. I hope the Government will give reasonable and serious thought to the request of the two noble Lords.
5.55 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain you very long, but I would like to take the opportunity of saying a word or two. It
1076
has been a privilege to me to hear this debate and the opinions expressed from different angles. Fifteen to twenty years ago, when I first began to discuss devolution of Scottish business, my voice was a lone voice in the wilderness, but now I am glad to find noble Lords rising in their places to discuss this question—not only noble Lords from one Party, but noble Lords from all Parties. What is more, they are talking about devolution for Scotland not in a facetious way, not in a hostile way, but in a friendly way, as if they were anxious to get to the bottom of this subject and to see if it will really do good in the government of this country as well as of Scotland.
I venture to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, touched on a very important spot indeed when he discussed this question of a Committee to investigate the representation of Scottish interests when you denationalize. Lord Lindsay spoke of denationalizing industry, and I presume the noble Lord meant also the public services. There are really only two industries being nationalized at the moment, one of which is the coal industry. Transport is a public service and hydro-electric schemes are a public service; but iron and steel, if nationalized, will be an industry. Whichever it is, public service or great industry, if we nationalize it, then it is most important that there should be maintained in Scotland the direction of the Scottish side of those industries—not as a shadowy direction, not as an empty direction, but as a real effective direction with management powers. I believe that in the Railway Bill they provided a half-time director for Scotland. We do not want half-time people. We want a proper director on our boards in Scotland, with full financial, industrial and administrative powers, to look after the Scottish interests in Scotland.
It is inconceivable that we in Scotland should always be content simply to sit on advisory committees. That is not what we want. That will not do at all. What we want is co-equal status with the representatives of England. Where our Scottish industries touch English interests let us have a joint board or committee on which the Scottish representation nominated by a Scottish body will sit with the same status side by side with the English representation and settle the matter together; and then let the people feel that

1077
they really have a hand in the matter. Unless the Scottish people can feel that they have some real responsibility, it will never do. The only way to get a show of success in a nationalized scheme will be to give Scotland a direct share in the administration of her own affairs. Some people doubt it. Some people say: Can Scotland manage anything? There are twelve hundred local authorities in Scotland, operating over thirty-three counties. They have a reputation for carrying on their business with great ability and economy, and what twelve hundred local authorities spread over thirty-three counties can do, and can do summarily, surely, common sense tells us, they can do collectively. There is no doubt that they can manage and conduct their affairs in Scotland in a reasonable and successful way.
We have had three Motions on the Paper this afternoon asking for the appointment of Committees. I do hope that that figure will come down to one Committee with real broad powers. We have had a Committee who reported on the feasibility of this scheme of devolution and, so far as Scotland was concerned, that was favourable. What we want now touches not the feasibility but the desirability. If you have this Committee, let it be appointed to inquire into the desirability of devolution and how it can be actually applied.
That is really all I want to say this afternoon as time is getting on, but I hope that we may have that one Committee. After all, why not have a Committee? There is some opposition to it, but what has Parliament to hide? Let us have the Committee to find all the facts. I think my noble friend Lord Elibank placed too much importance on the idea of the Scottish Nationalist. I said last time that every Party was bothered with extremists, and I will say now that the extremists in Scotland have done more harm to the cause of devolution than anyone else. I feel absolutely confident that the great body of Scottish opinion is solid on this question and it is reasonable. While the people want a Parliament, or a Legislative Assembly—Parliament is the old Scottish name—they have No 1ntention and no desire whatever to upset the supremacy of this Mother of Parliaments at Westminster.
6.0 p.m.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I do not wish to stand for more than a minute or two between your Lordships and the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government, but as a representative of Wales I am very much interested in this Motion. I should like to suggest to the House that if a Committee, such as is desired for the purpose of considering the whole question of a certain measure of devolution to Scotland in regard to local affairs and local government, is in fact set up, then its survey should extend to Wales as well. When I was a member of another place many years ago, Welsh representatives there used frequently to bring forward Motions stressing the desirability and the necessity of further devolution of powers to Wales in regard to local affairs and local government. Circumstances and conditions have changed considerably since then, but it is a fact that the necessity for a further measure of devolution of powers in regard to Welsh affairs is as acute to-day as ever. We desire a further measure of devolution in regard to local government matters, and in regard particularly to education, licensing, and other important issues in our public life. I will not take up the time of the House further to-day except to say that if the Government are prepared to consider the creation of a Committee or a Commission to hold an inquiry with regard to Scottish affairs, the purview of that inquiry should be extended to the country which I know best—Wales.
6.3 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I wish to intervene in this debate for but a very few minutes. My chief reason for doing so it that last week I was in Glasgow, and I think that perhaps this is the right moment to convey to your Lordships one or two very strong impressions that I received during my visit to that city. I must confess that I had always thought that accounts of Scottish feeling upon this matter of devolution were slightly exaggerated, because, although I am a Scottish Peer, I normally live in the South. However, I found that that was not the case at all. During the time I was in Glasgow I spoke to a great many people—ordinary folk, men in the street, artisans, business men and students—and they all said the same thing. All showed the most intense interest in, and

1079
displayed extremely strong feelings upon, this matter. I must admit that an expression of such feeling, coming from so wide a section of the public as it did, was, to me, something of a shock.
One man in particular told me the reason which made him feel so strongly about the need for a greater measure of administrative power being given to Scotland. He is a member of the local authority of the town in which he lives, and that local authority recently desired to improve the street lighting in one street. Now, as it happened, that street was the main thoroughfare, and therefore the local authority were obliged to make an application to the Ministry of Transport in London. A representative of the Ministry went up from London to that small town to discuss the matter with the local authority. After doing so, he returned to the South, and later some forms were delivered at the offices of the authority. These were filled up and sent back. Subsequently more forms arrived. These also were returned after being duly filled in. Eventually, yet another set of forms came along, and these, too, were appropriately dealt with. Since their despatch to London, however, nothing more has been heard from Whitehall about this street lighting matter. That little town is, situated at a great distance from Whitehall, and the people there naturally feel that their controlling interest is very far away from them. Now they are rather at sea as to what they will do next, and feel doubtful regarding the possibility of their ever getting the improved lighting that they require.
I realize that this is a very complex problem and that there can be no quick remedy. I am certain that Scots universally understand that. They fully realize that in a matter of this size and complexity there can be No 1mmediate solution. However, the least His Majesty's Government can do at this moment is to set up a Commission or Committee of Inquiry to go into this vast subject and not only to deal with the views of the Scottish people but also to tackle the question generally of the evils of over-centralized government. It seems to me that at the present time His Majesty's Government are doing nothing in this matter. I cannot see that they are moving at all in any direction to give satisfaction to the
1080
people who are interested and affected. Honestly, the Scots, as I saw last week, are really getting a little "fed up "with the situation. I certainly do not believe in Scotland seceding from England, and I am quite sure that very few Scots want that, but I do feel that unless His Majesty's Government take some action, and courageous action, immediately, the Scots are going to be forced to do something which they do not want to do and which the whole nation might well regret.
6.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I wonder if I may intervene for one moment. I happen to be half a Scot and I live on the borders of Wales. I should like to say that, for my part, I entirely agree with what fell this afternoon from the lips of my noble friend Lord Lindsay of Birker, and also with what I have heard since from the noble Duke, and from my noble friend Lord Clwyd. I feel that some measure of devolution, particularly in regard to administrative matters, has become almost essential. I will give only one illustration in supporting this opinion, and that is with regard to a problem which is exercising the minds of a large number of Welsh agriculturists—the institution of a Veterinary Department under the University of Wales. We feel strongly about it, because if there is one thing more essential than another in connexion with the improvement of livestock, it is the strengthening of the veterinary profession. That is badly needed to-day if we are to keep animal diseases under control.
I have been for many years Pro-Chancellor of the University of Bristol, but my sympathies in this connexion are not with Bristol but with the University of Wales which is established in Cardiff. I do not believe that you will ever effectively carry out proper veterinary administration in a part of this country which has done great work in improving its dairy cattle and its horseflesh unless you have devolution within Wales to deal with this particular problem. For my part, being, as I have said, half a Scot and living on the borders of Wales, I entirely agree with the suggestion that a Committee should be set up to deal with the question of devolution.
6.10 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, whatever may be said of the Government in

1081
general by those who have taken part in this debate, it cannot be said that Scottish affairs are being neglected. This is the second Scottish debate in two weeks—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: By Scotsmen, not by the Government.
LORD MORRISON: It is about a fortnight since the last one took place, but, unlike the last one, it has been taken part in by representatives of England and Wales, and even Yorkshire. I can almost imagine the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, when he saw these reinforcements come from outlying areas to Scotland's aid, thinking of the lines of the old hymn:
"Reinforcements now appearing, Victory is nigh."
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who opened for a second time, shares along with the noble Duke the privilege of being the pioneer of devolution debates in your Lordships' House. Like other pioneers of their race, they can say that they have aroused an interest on this side of the Border. Therefore I was not altogether surprised when the noble Viscount at once gave notice to contract out of Lord Lindsay's Motion. The noble Viscount says that if this Motion is widened, Scotland is in danger of being left a little out in the cold. The object of Lord Lindsay's Motion, which we discussed an hour ago, is to appoint a Committee to consider the question of devolution all over the United Kingdom. The noble Viscount is concerned with Scotland, and he is wisely sticking to his original proposition and does not want the issue widened. If England or Wales or any other place want to discuss devolution, let them do so, but Scotland was a pioneer in this and they are entitled to try it out. I think that is a clear version of what the noble Viscount said. May I sum up this interesting debate? At this late hour, it can be only a brief summing up. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, pointed out again what he made clear on the last occasion, that this is a most insistent demand in Scotland. He asked, when will England treat Scotland as a kingdom?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I intervene? That is not exactly what I said. I am sure the noble Lord does not want to misrepresent me. I said, when will England give up treating Scotland as one of her provinces?
LORD MORRISON: I am not here this afternoon representing England, either by birth or in any other way. I am representing the Secretary of State for Scotland in my humble capacity here, and I report to the Secretary of State who, in turn, if he thinks the matter of sufficient importance, as he frequently does, will report to the Cabinet. The noble Viscount referred to the recent by-election in East Edinburgh. I would make only this comment. He said people were asking why it is, if there is an insistent demand for devolution in Scotland, that every time a Scottish Nationalist candidate puts up he loses his deposit. It goes further than that. In the by-election in East Edinburgh, not only the Scottish Nationalist candidate but the Liberal candidate, who presumably was advocating the kind of Home Rule the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was so eloquently advocating in Aberdeen the other day, also lost his deposit. Therefore, I am not for one instant putting it forward in mitigation of Lord Elibank's position, which I entirely accept, that there is a strong and growing demand in Scotland for some further opportunity of managing their own affairs than they have at the present time. I said that in the last debate and I repeat it now. The points Viscount Elibank made are perfectly correct, though candidates lose their deposits. There is no great demand for absolute separation.
That brings me to what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said. He wants to widen the terms of reference, which to me raises this quesion: should a committee be decided upon before the terms of reference which are to be put before the committee, or should you first of all determine the terms of reference and then appoint a committee? I should have thought the best way is to determine first the terms of reference, because until you know what the committee is to inquire into there is no point in deciding to have a committee.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: That: is precisely what I want.
LORD MORRISON: That is the very matter which requires close consideration. I was surprised to hear Lord Mansfield say that the last Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Westwood, was not of Scottish birth. I believe he came to Scotland when he was very young. I was surprised and a little disappointed. What about the number of M.P.'s representing

1083
Scottish constituencies who are not Scottish by birth? I have in mind one about which I know a good deal—North Aberdeen—surely the centre of Scottish feeling. The last three members have not been Scotsmen. I do not know why Lord Mansfield should raise a point of that sort. What about Scotsmen in England? How do I stand? I represented in the British House of Commons for twenty years a part of London and nobody ever raised with me the suggestion that I ought to go back to Scotland and try to get into Parliament there.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Scotsmen have colonized England.
LORD MORRISON: Perhaps they were wise enough to recognize that I was in London for London's good. The noble Lords, Lord Calverley and Lord Clwyd, will forgive me if I do not reply to their points. Lord Calverley dragged in Yorkshire and Lord Clwyd made reference to Wales, but I have enough on my plate with Scotland, and I ask to be forgiven for not replying to what they said. I think I could sum up in one sentence the interesting and constructive speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and I do not think the noble Duke would take exception to it. He said it was clear that the Scottish people must have more responsibility in Scotland. I think that is a fair summary of what he said. The Motion we discussed before we came to this one, that of Lord Lindsay, asked for an, inquiry into the problems of devolution. The Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, is exactly the same but limited to Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hardly accept that. Lord Lindsay's Motion, as I read it, refers to decentralization and devolution so far as nationalized industries are concerned. My Motion refers to a much broader issue so far as Scotland is concerned—control of Scottish affairs—and I submit there is a great difference between the two.
LORD MORRISON: I have not the least desire to misrepresent the noble Viscount, as he well knows. His Motion is in favour of the advisability of effective devolution of control and administration in Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Yes, but not nationalized industries only.
LORD MORRISON: The point I was going to make was that neither of these problems can be solved by a single quick decision. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, proposes a Committee. I suggest that the issue between us, after two debates, is very small. The noble Viscount says that the way to a solution to this problem is to appoint a Committee. The Government agree that this is an important problem for Scotland, and it is so important that it might be dangerous to make a decision with undue haste. Therefore, as I informed the House only two weeks ago, urgent consideration is being given to this problem, and amongst the matters being considered is whether or not the best line of approach to this complex matter is the appointment of a Committee of some sort or another. That sums up all I have to say.
It is not a small matter; it is not a matter that the Secretary of State for Scotland can settle off his own bat in a few minutes. The debate we have had to-day, and the debate we had a fortnight ago, indicate the complexity of the matter, and certainly prove how many different points of view there are. Therefore, the proper approach is, first of all, to explore and decide whether the best way to meet a problem of this sort is by setting up a Committee, and what the terms of reference of such a Committee will be; whether they will be wide enough to include separation or Home Rule, and all the other things that have been mentioned, and whether they will be wide enough to include similar questions for Wales and Yorkshire. This is the kind of problem about which the first committee, the British Cabinet, will have to make up their mind. I can only conclude by thanking all those who have taken part in this debate, and by saying that, so far as I am concerned, I am not authorized to make any statement beyond what I said in the last debate.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord says that this matter is under the closest consideration, and that it will finally have to come before the Cabinet. Can the noble Lord give us any idea as to when this matter will reach finality? We have now had two debates, and I am given to-day practically the same reply that I was given a fortnight ago. Before I reply, can the noble Lord give us some idea as

1085
to when there will be finality? Will it be within the next fortnight, or after the next recess, or when will it be?
LORD MORRISON: I cannot give the noble Viscount any definite answer. As he knows (he has been in politics a long time, as I have) there are problems that receive consideration, and there are problems that receive urgent consideration. On the authority of the Government, I said on the last occasion when I spoke that this was one of the problems that was receiving urgent consideration. I am not able to go beyond that. I would like to assure the noble Viscount, however, that as soon as I receive information that the answer for which he is hopefully asking is ready, I will inform him in the usual way. He can then put down a third Motion in order to obtain the answer, which I hope may be that which he is anxious to get.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot expect me to be anything but disappointed with the reply which he has given. At the same time, he has indicated very definitely, for the second time, that the Secretary of State for Scotland has this under very urgent consideration and regards it as an urgent matter. Consequently, I see no other course but to accept that answer on behalf of those who have so ably and eloquently supported me this afternoon. I also accept the noble Lord's offer that he will send me a message telling me when he will be able to give an answer, and I hope it will be soon. There are one or two matters which have arisen in the debate which I should like to clear up before I withdraw my Motion. First of all, there is the question of the Scottish Nationalists. My noble friend the Earl of Mansfield thought that I had exaggerated the views of the Scottish Nationalists, as did my noble friend, the Duke of Montrose. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the Scottish Nationalists have been led for so long by leaders who are extremists that the general feeling in Scotland to-day is that Scottish Nationalism is an extreme mode of thought in this matter, and that it would be dangerous to support their candidates in elections. I will not go further than that. Putting it that way, I think, explains a good deal.
1086
I want to express my gratitude for the fact that this debate has broadened today, and that we have had English, as well as Welsh, support. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, for the speech which he made, and for the way he exposed to his countrymen the strong feelings; that we have in Scotland about this matter. It is always helpful to think that there are on this side of the Border men of his knowledge and ability who see our point of view, and who will support us. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, is concerned, I certainly welcomed his support, and I am glad that he, from his point of view, feels that Wales ought to have a Committee in order to inquire into her position. I did not welcome, however, his suggestion that that Committee should be one and the same for Scotland and Wales, because they are two different countries, with two quite different modes of thought, of ideas, and so on. I do not think the same Committee would be able to do justice to both countries. I suggest, if there is to be a Committee for Wales, that it should be a separate one. I want to thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax for the speech which he made. Alter all, he came down straight from Glasgow. He had what we might call "hot news" of the situation, and he gave it to us. I think his speech carried a great deal of weight. I was not at all sure that I agreed altogether with the noble "Lord when he said he would like to see this Committee embrace nationalized industries in the other countries.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, I did not intend to say that. My intention was that at the moment the Committee should be purely for Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I gladly accept that correction. There was one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to which I would like to refer. He suggested that there was the possibility of a Committee dealing with other countries and not only Scotland.
LORD MORRISON: I have No 1nformation about that at all. The point I was making was that I was surprised that the noble Viscount, having pioneered this issue, should not want to have it widened to take in the whole of Great Britain.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am glad to hear that explanation, because I had misunderstood it. I know my noble friend the Earl of Mansfield may wish to say something—and I should like to congratulate him upon his speech. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw my Motion, in the hope that that message telling us that something really good is going to happen may come very soon.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

Borough of Crosby;

Borough of Glastonbury;

—

1946.

1947 (January-October).

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

thousand tons.

£ million.

thousand tons.

£ million.

Jamaica and Dependencies

84·2

2·2

76·7

2·3

Remaining British West Indies

264·4

6·8

230·6

7·0

Rest of British Empire

32·1

0·9

Nil

Nil

Total, British Empire

380·7

9·9

307·3

9·3

Rest of the World

1,088·3

27·2

1,435·8

45·6

Total Imports

1,469·0

37·1

1,743·1

54·9

Home-grown beet sugar production in United Kingdom.

Campaign 1939–40

…

…

504,000 tons in refined equivalent.

Campaign 1944–45

…

…

400,000 tons in refined equivalent.

Campaign 1945–46

…

…

519,000 tons in refined equivalent.

Campaign 1946–47

…

…

579,000 tons in refined equivalent.

ASH CONTENT OF COAL.
LORD BARNEY LORD BARNEY asked His Majesty's Government, with reference to a statement made that current coal deliveries contain a high ash content, whether they can now state what are the less tangible factors contributing to it; their degree of importance, and if controllable, what

Borough of Guildford;

Urban District of Frinton and Walton;

Urban District of Wigston;

Rural District of Hungerford:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.