Lords Sitting of 5 February 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LORD ISMAY.
  Sir Hastings Lionel Ismay, G.C.B., C.H., D.S.O., having been created Baron Ismay of Wormington in the County of Gloucester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD KERSHAW.
Fred Kershaw, Esquire, O.B.E., having been created Baron Kershaw of Prestwich in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
"1. The Committee recommend the following alterations in the procedure of the House.

(i) That starred questions shall only be put upon the Order Paper on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and that on such days they shall be disposed of after Private Business, before other Notices and Orders of the Day; and that not more than three starred questions be placed upon the Order Paper for any one day.

(ii) That no motion or question, other than motions relating to Bills and Departmental Orders and questions not for oral answer, shall be accepted by the Table for any date more than four weeks ahead of the date on which it is handed in; and that in reckoning the said period of four weeks, no account shall be taken of any time during which the House is in Recess.

2. The Committee recommend that notwithstanding Standing Order XXI the above alterations in the procedure of the House shall take effect for the present Session of Parliament."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, in moving that the House do agree with the Committee's Report, I think it might be appropriate if I said just a few words in support. This proposal has been considered more than once by the Committee on Procedure. The matter was brought to their notice again in November last after representations from a number of your Lordships and from certain Ministers as well, and it was again considered by the Committee. They committed it to a sub-committee which made special inquiries and reported, as here recorded, to the Select Committee, and the Select Committee recommend it to your Lordships for your adoption.
This Report is really concerned with two things. It aims at getting a simple arrangement for dealing with starred questions and one that will not make too great an encroachment upon your Lordships' time. It also aims at making the matter more definite, for the procedure has sometimes been that a noble Lord has had to wait for perhaps two or three hours to ask a question which is replied to in a few words; and on the other side it has often been the case that the Minister whose business it is to reply has similarly had to wait for a long time to give an answer in a few words. This has frequently caused inconvenience which, if possible, should be avoided. At the same time, it is felt that it would be prejudicial to the general business of the House if the time spent on these questions was unduly prolonged, or encroached on our general business. Therefore, the Committee recommend, in the first recommendation, that starred questions should be on the Order Paper on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and that on such days they should be disposed of after private business and before other Notices and Orders. The Committee also recommend that not more than three starred questions should be placed on the Order Paper on one day. That might be thought to impose considerable limitations, but, in fact, if we study past Order Papers we shall see that very rarely are there as many as three starred questions.

401
In practice, therefore, there is not likely to be any limitation.
The second recommendation deals with another matter on which there is complete accord on all sides of the House, so far as one has been able to ascertain. It is that we should take care, as far as possible, that in placing on the Order Paper notices of Motion, the Paper does not become so crowded that it becomes impossible to find time to debate some urgent matter that may arise. As we all know, this is sometimes rather inconvenient. Hitherto, by the aid of the Whips and their skilful adjustment of matters, we have generally been able to find time if some urgent matter crops up, but it has often presented serious difficulty. It is suggested, therefore, that notices of Motion should not be placed on the Order Paper for more than a month in advance. In this way the time before us will not be unduly crowded, and we shall be able to make arrangements through the usual channels of consultation for discussing matters that arise from time to time which may be deemed to be urgent. It is for those reasons that these recommendations are made to your Lordships, and I hope you will see fit to approve of them. I beg to move.
Moved—That the Report be now agreed to—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON:My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Viscount Cranborne is away ill. I hope that he will be here again next week. I know that if he had been here he would have given, as I do, wholehearted support to both the proposals in the Report of the Committee. As we should have expected, they have done their work with great thoroughness, and in the recommendations which they have made they will carry the support of the whole House with them. The recommendations are essentially practical, and they are, I think, also in line with all the tradition and practice of the House. Not always is the convenience of Ministers, and perhaps what I might call the convenience of private members, one and the same, but in this particular case I think it is equally for the convenience of the Ministers who have to answer, and the noble Lords who put the questions, that, within reasonable limits, these questions should be taken at the beginning of business.
402
I think three in number (blessed figure!) seems a suitable figure to give us—a suitable ration. I suppose I ought to say. Equally in this matter, I think all your Lordships will agree that some limitation on the advance notice of Motions to be placed on the Order Paper is desirable. I remember many years ago when I had to draft a Films Bill to re-establish the film industry in the country, the one thing on which everybody was agreed was that there was a great evil in blind booking and block booking by which the screens were filled up for months ahead. In the same way, I think we are all agreed that it is undesirable that the Order Paper of this House should be filled up for weeks or months ahead. For all the reasons which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has given, on behalf of those for whom I speak I cordially support the proposal.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I would express full concurrence with what has been said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before we leave this question may I, as one of those who originally suggested something of this sort, say that I wholeheartedly welcome what has been done, and I understand the limitation which has naturally been applied to it. However, I should like to know how this will affect private notice questions. Presumably private notice questions would come before these starred questions. Would that in any way rule cut private notice questions on a Thursday? I notice that Tuesday and Wednesday are the two days allotted to starred questions.
VISCOUNT ADDISON:My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that it will make no difference at all to the existing practice in regard to private notice questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF WELWYN ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN:My Lord, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Rural District of Welwyn, and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF BRIDGEND ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Bridgend, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF OAKHAM ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Oakham, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTTISH HOUSING SCHEMES.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW THE EARL OF GLASGOW rose to move to resolve, That the policy of His Majesty's Government of moving rural villages into the nearest towns is not in the best interests of the nation, and that the siting of the new housing scheme for the village of Glenbuck, Ayrshire, in the town of Muirkirk, and for the village of Waterside in the town of Dalmellington be reconsidered and further that an alternative plan be adopted for the proposed new town at Drongan. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Motion has been worded so that it applies to the whole country, although I propose to speak chiefly on the de-population of the rural areas in the locality in which I live. This tendency to denude the countryside may
404
or may not be common everywhere, but it does appear to be very active north of the Border and perhaps applies more to mining than agricultural villages. I have no wish to score a point against the Government; this undermining of the social structure of the countryside has been going on for a long time and has been the policy of successive Governments.
During the last fifteen years five Ayrshire villages have been moved into the nearest towns, and sixteen other rural communities—some of them hamlets and some of them cottage rows—have suffered the same fate. In the great majority of those cases the people themselves had no wish at all to be moved. The procedure has been that where a re-housing scheme for a village is contemplated and where the services for a village such as water, drainage, electricity and so on, have to be renewed or installed, the re-housing, for supposed economical reasons, is carried out in the nearest towns, and the process is continued until only the ruins of the village are left. Lucky is a rural community which has not got a town near it.
Glenbuck—your Lordships have never heard of it, I suppose—is an Ayrshire mining village on the borders of Lanarkshire. Against the wishes of the people, the health authorities at Edinburgh propose that the new housing scheme should be sited in Muirkirk, a town four miles away, on the ground that it is not worth while spending money on the enlarging of the Glenbuck water supply and bringing electricity to the village. They have a case, but these indefatigable planners have entirely overlooked the human aspect—namely, that the village dwellers have an affection for the place in which they were born and brought up. The people of Glenbuck have no wish to be uprooted and moved into a town. An argument which the noble Lord who replies will no doubt put forward is that the coal seams are worked out and that there is no future for the village. That may be true with regard to the coal seams which exist in the proximity of Glenbuck, but unproved seams of coal exist between Glenbuck and Muirkirk, and although the larger portion of those lies nearer Muirkirk, a distance of three or four miles will not preclude the miners of Glenbuck from working in any new pits which, dependent on the Coal Board, may be opened.
Most of the Glenbuck men work in or near Muirkirk but they have not the slightest wish to live there. A few work at the Douglas coal pits in Lanarkshire, and if they were moved to Muirkirk they would have further to go to their work. There is a great community spirit in Glenbuck. If the people are moved into a town, that will be lost, and surely it is the community spirit of the villages of the countryside which we want to preserve. It is quite true that the enlarging of the water supply and the installation of a new drainage system would cost money, but it would be money well spent. Providing that the Government will give the usual grant, I am quite sure that the ratepayers of Ayrshire will not grudge their share so that these people may live where they have always lived. I ask that this matter may be reconsidered and that the provision of whatever services are required for the village may be approved.
The village of Waterside in the Doon Valley is also threatened. The authorities in Edinburgh want to re-house the people in the neighbouring towns of Dalmellington and Patna, against their wishes and against the wishes of the Ayr County Council, which has ground available near the village for re-housing purposes. It is not a particularly good site, but it is feasible and a planning possibility, and it is also agreeable to the people; but the dictators have turned it down. Eighty per cent. of the men of Waterside work at or near the village, and it is a thriving community possessing a very fine Welfare Institute. I saw a deputation, and I was impressed with the strong desire shown by the men to remain where they are. They told me that 100 per cent. of the villagers wanted this. Locomotive men who work at Waterside would be particularly inconvenienced by removal to Patna or Dalmellington because they would have to travel from those places to Waterside to start their work very early in the morning. There is nothing to prevent the communities of Glenbuck and Waterside from achieving their desire to remain where they are except the stony-hearted attitude of the Department in Edinburgh.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is it the Department in Edinburgh or the Secretary of State for Scotland?
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: The Secretary of State for Scotland approves of what the Department in Edinburgh
406
does. I therefore ask that the whole question of the re-housing of the people of Waterside be, as in the case of Glenbuck, reconsidered and that the county council be permitted to go ahead with their alternative plans. Let me now turn to another aspect of planning—new towns. A town to house 40,000 people, and to cover 2,000 acres is to be built on the plains of Kyle, eight miles (too close in my opinion) from the Burgh of Ayr. Five mining villages are to be done away with and the people re-housed around the mining town of Drongan. The houses in these villages are in a bad condition, and it is difficult: to re-house the people where they are—that is what they want, of course—owing to the mineral situation. There is a strong case here for careful planning which should take into consideration, so far as possible, the wishes and the sentiments of the people who have to be uprooted. The people themselves do not wish to be moved into a town, although they would not object to being transferred to existing villages.
The county council plan, which was turned down, had the merit of preventing the de-population of the countryside. The county council has been forced to agree to the principle of this new township, but it much prefers its own plan. The Secretary of State has accepted the view of the planners in Edinburgh, and no doubt he thinks he is taking the long view in agreeing to a town of 40,000 people-a number nearly double the population of the area which the town is supposed to serve. He has given no consideration to the de-population of the countryside or to the wishes of the people, and he has brushed aside the plans of the local authority. His plan must go through.
If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, I will state what the county council proposals are. The county authorities plan is to re-house the people from the Drongan area in the existing villages of Tarbolton, Auchinleck, Mauchline, Cumnock, Ochiltree and Coylton. They want these villages to be developed on modern lines, introducing light industries and public facilities for a mixed community of agricultural and other workers besides miners. Further, they propose to build a new modern village near Drongan, allowing for a community large enough to justify the provision of communal facilities. Almost all these villages which the County Council wishes to expand are on the fringe

407
of the potential coal field. They would be safe from subsidence, and the miners would be near their work. Also this plan would ensure that they would be rehoused in moderate-sized country communities. This scheme for the expansion of existing villages should be supported—and I hope your Lordships will support it later on—for the following reasons. It is not a good policy to lift people out of village life which they are used to, and place them in a town. It is unsound in the interests of the future generation. Everyone agrees that the isolation of a mining community is a bad thing, and that living in the present old row of miners cottages, the miner has never had an opportunity of mixing with his fellows in other walks of life.
That is one of the objects of the proposed new town, but that aim can also be achieved by the original county council plan of bringing the miners into an agricultural village and by introducing into the village the appropriate light industries so that a community life will be built up which would justify the expenditure in the necessary public services. The scheme of the Edinburgh planners means the elimination of twenty-one dairy farms containing boo cows producing 380,000 gallons of milk a year. The plan of the local authorities for expanding existing small villages would interfere much less with complete farming units than the sterilization of the huge area envisaged in the Government scheme. Then there is the danger that in a large town the younger generation of miners would drift into other occupations, and above all it is a fact that people living in rural communities are healthier and often happier than those in towns, and few, if any, of these miners want to become townsmen. Surely, that should be the crux of the matter.
That is the local authorities' plan, and I venture to say that it is a better plan than that made in Edinburgh. What is to be deprecated is this dictatorship spirit. The local authorities are the people on the spot and they have to submit to having their ideas swept aside and their careful planning turned down by gentlemen sitting in Edinburgh. The county council might just as well give up their executive powers and consider themselves as advisory committees.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is that the Lanarkshire County Council?
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: The Ayrshire County Council. I have another criticism. A considerable part of the proposed town will be within the parish of Coylton, which contains a very old community, and it is disagreeable, to say the least of it, to Scotsmen to think of this parish, with its historical and sentimental traditions, being merged into a town. The poet Burns (of whom some of your Lordships may have heard) was born within ten miles of the parish of Coylton. His footsteps have trod the banks of the Coyle. This is a burn which will run right through the centre of the new town, and which Burns has immortalized in these lines:
"I thought upon the banks of Coil,
I thought upon my Nancy,
I thought upon the witching smile
That caught my youthful fancy.
At last I reached the bonny glen,
Where early life I sported,
I passed the mill and Trysting Thorn
Where Nancy aft I'd courted."
The mill and a trysting thorn are still there, and if this plan is to go forward then I hope that this spot, dear to all Scotsmen, will be preserved against the encroachments of a modern town. I do not want to boom my part of the world too much, but Ayrshire is the Mecca of Scotsmen throughout the world. There are between 700,000 and 800,000 Americans of Scottish ancestry in the United States, and before the war many of these came to Ayrshire. No doubt after things have calmed down a little they will come again and bring their dollars, but there is no doubt that there will be a strong feeling of frustration amongst them when they look for the trysting thorn and the mill and find they have been incorporated in a modern town, however well-planned that town may be.
Some of your Lordships may think this is all sentiment and nonsense and should not be allowed to interfere with a planned scheme, but sentiment and ideology are strong forces in the world to-day and must be taken into account. What is being done in Ayrshire is being done throughout Scotland. I saw in the Press that the charming little village of Fordell in Fife is to be moved, with its population, into another town. I am indebted to the County Clerk of Fife for an interesting graph of the increase and decrease of the parish populations of the county, which showed how important the distribution of industry is for the development of the land and for the prevention

409
of the de-population of the rural areas. As it pointed out, a well balanced mixture of industry within the rural districts will improve the conditions in those districts, and a good transport system will decongest the over-crowded mining areas, or in fact any over-crowded area, thus establishing a steady increase of wellbeing, evenly distributed over the whole land. This in my opinion should be the long term view in planning the countryside, and would greatly help to stein the flow from the country to the town. It is in pursuance of this general idea that Ayr County Council formulated the scheme for the Drongan area, which has been overruled by the super-planners in Edinburgh.
To sum up, since the objects of the proposed large town can be met by the alternative local authority plan, the building of the town is unnecessary. The county council plan has the advantage of resettling the people in the villages and small towns scattered throughout the countryside. Any further increase of the population in the area through bringing workers from Lanarkshire, for instance, could be met in the same way. If the new town is to be proceeded with it will take at least twenty-five years before it gets its whole population. During that period a large part of the 2,000 acres of agricultural land will be sterilized. Although the expansion of the villages under the county council scheme will take land from the countryside, the process will be gradual and more land will remain productive daring the bad times which lie ahead than would be available if the Government's plan were carried out and the new town built. Above all, it is the wish of the people to be moved into villages and not into the new town.
I think it is a matter of regret that the Government cannot be more elastic in their planning and that they should press their schemes through regardless of these considerations. It is true that the Ayr County Council did not formally object to the plan. The Ayrshire County Council has a Labour majority and they would hate to go against the Government in a strong way. As in other cases, they reluctantly agreed, in order not to delay housing. Your Lordships can imagine that if they did not agree at once to the Government's scheme it would mean a long period of delay and they could not go forward with the housing plans, and that is the
410
reason why they agreed to the Government scheme. I sit on the Housing Committee, and I know that every member of that committee in his mind favours the expansion of existing villages instead of the installation of the people in a complete new township against their wishes. I ask the noble Lord if he will represent to the Secretary of State for Scotland the strong desire of these miners to be re-housed in villages, and their equally strong objection to being moved into a town, and that the county council plan be reconsidered with a view to its acceptance.
What is to be the end of all this? There are many reasons why it does no good service to the interest of the nation for the sturdy folk of the country to become town dwellers. It is the men from the villages of Scotland and the yeomen of England who, due to the surroundings in which they live, provide the strong physique and healthy constitution so necessary for the continuance of our race. A countryman has many attributes which a townsman, through no fault of his own, lacks. The countryman lives close to nature, and his character and outlook are often more serious-minded and stable. He and his women-kind work hard, and his capacity for work is not undermined and dissipated by the distractions and sometimes harmful influence of the towns. It is possible that we would have no country at all if it were not for the villagers. The men from the villages were a deciding factor in stemming the tide during the war, as the percentage of these men who passed their medical examination A was a great deal higher than that from the towns.
Some of the finest of all countrymen are miners, for the great majority of men who work in mines are countrymen. They may work at the bottom of the shaft, but when they come up they see the blue sky and the wild flowers of the countryside; and what is more important is that that is what their children see, instead of the streets of the town. It is a long way for me to go from Ayrshire to Sussex, but I would like to ask why the new town of Crawley could nit have been built on waste land, of which there is plenty in those parts. This country will shortly be faced with a serious economic situation when it will become difficult to pay for the food we are buying abroad. To keep the people alive, we shall want every bushel

411
of wheat we can grow; and, as corollaries to that, every acre of land that will grow the wheat and the people to cultivate that land. Therefore, if, by sacrificing a beauty spot in Sussex or in Kent, thousands of acres of land can be saved, the extra money required would be money well spent.
It is common knowledge that the War Office have reserved large tracts of agricultural land all over the country. In view of the years of food shortage which are undoubtedly coming, I think the taking up of all this agricultural land is deplorable. The only thing to be said for it is that, in a crisis, this land, or most of it, can quickly be brought back into agriculture. That would not have been possible if a new town had been built there. I presume that in such a town as that proposed at Crawley all housing schemes for workers will be earmarked for families in whose interests the town is being built—families from the neighbouring big city. One cannot stop the countryman from coming in, but he can be discouraged by the provision of proper facilities in the villages and by expansion of those villages.
Finally, my Lords, I want to emphasize that in the interest of the maintenance of our food supplies the prevention of the de-population of the countryside is as important as the rehabilitation of townsmen. There is a fear that in carrying out this important task for the towns and cities the authorities may lose sight of the equally important aspect of keeping intact the social structure of the rural districts and the prevention of their de-population. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the policy of His Majesty's Government of moving rural villages into the nearest towns is not in the best interests of the nation, and that the siting of the new housing scheme for the village of Glenbuck, Ayrshire, in the town of Muirkirk, and for the village of Waterside in the town of Dalmellington, be reconsidered; and further that an alternative plan be adopted for the proposed new town at Drongan.—(The Earl of Glasgow.)
3.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I want to speak to the first part of this Motion. I do not normally speak on
412
Motions to do with Scottish affairs, as I believe these things should be left to the Scots themselves. There was a time before I entered this House and when I first entered this House when I was prepared to speak in all Scottish debates, but I very soon came to realize what the words "Scotland for ever" meant; and since then I have not added to the length of debates by speaking myself. Besides, I have no experience of these various places with quaint names mentioned by the noble proposer of the Motion, and I think that they are much safer left in his charge.
In the first part of the Motion, I read:
"that the policy of His Majesty's Government of moving rural villages into the nearest towns is not in the best interests of the nation."
I do not recognize that as the policy of the present Government. I cannot conceive that it would be the policy of the present Government, and if it were the policy of the present Government I myself would not support it.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: It has been the policy of successive Governments.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It may be that it was the policy of other Governments, but I have no knowledge of that. I certainly hope it is not the policy of the present Government. It seems to me that much the best organization, not only for Scotland but for the rest of Great Britain—and I usually speak for Wales—is the assembling of workers as far as possible in small communities, either small towns or reasonably-sized villages. We have already heard from the noble Earl in this debate many of the reasons why it is a bad thing for workers to live in large towns. There is a very good reason why they should live in small towns, or in villages; that is, of course, that in communities of that size they can receive the proper treatment which everyone demands in these modern days. Housewives are able, if they all live reasonably close together, to enjoy facilities such as modern shopping centres, electricity, water supplies, decent communications, and all those little things which make such an enormous difference to the average people of this country.
I know what it is like in Wales. I would like to tell you what a difference it makes in those parts for the ordinary worker if he is able to live in a reasonably small community. We have near

413
my place a little village which is reasonably close to a bus route and although at the moment we have no piped water, I understand that water and electricity are very soon to be laid on for us. These facilities can only be brought to us because we are a fairly small, close-knit community. It is very difficult and very expensive to lay on those facilities to separate houses, cottages and homesteads which are scattered about the deep countryside.
What is more the housewife, who in our day likes to get fairly often to neighbouring towns or villages in order to shop, finds great difficulty in getting away from a homestead which is miles away out in the wilds. She has to take the children with her and probably she has to abandon her husband to fend for himself if, as in a great many of these rural communities or small farms, the husband comes in to dinner every day. What is more, the country worker in our days likes to get into a neighbouring community for a bit of community life; it may be to go to the pictures, it may be to attend a local meeting, or just to meet up with friends in the market and chat and generally to take part in normal community life. This is remarkably difficult for those who dwell in scattered homesteads. Therefore, for these and for a large number of other reasons, which I am sure your Lordships can think of for yourselves, this Government is, so far as I am aware, encouraging the growth of village life.
A fact which is of great importance from the point of view of agriculture (and I mean agriculture in the whole of Great Britain) is that if this great industry is really going to advance it must mechanize to a degree hitherto unknown, and, really, it can only mechanize efficiently from very small centres. This is partly because its mechanization depends on electricity and partly because tractors and such like machinery will break down. When they break down they almost inevitably break down at the most awkward moment, and they have then to be repaired. A farmer who lives out in the wilds has to get his broken tractor towed, it may be a considerable distance, to a machine shop; or else possibly weeks may elapse before someone can go out to his farm to repair it for him. In the meantime his farm work goes to the devil.
414
On the other hand, the fanner who is farming in a small community probably lives just across the road from the local machine-shop where his machinery can be put right with the minimum delay, or from which he can get a mechanic, or a welder, or whoever it may be, to cross the road to his premises and do the necessary repairs there. The result is that after a breakdown it is often possible to continue working with the repaired machine the same day. For these reasons, I think, we must accept and encourage the assembly of agricultural workers so far as possible into small communities. It is because I have this matter so much on my mind that I have risen to speak to-day. But I would like also to say that I support the noble Earl and I sympathize with him and with his small and outlandishly named Scottish villages. I hope that they will succeed in their fight against the bureaucrats of Edinburgh, who, I am sure, are not carrying out a policy which is approved either in Edinburgh or in Whitehall.
3.34 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just addressed your Lordships' House commenced by making a general statement to the effect that, generally, Scottish affairs were better left to Scottish people. I did not hear any dissent from that view expressed in the House, and it puts me in a slight difficulty, because, as some of your Lordships may be aware, it is many years since I resided in Scotland. I was born there and, so far as I have been able to ascertain—delving back to the early part of the 17th Century—I am the only member of my family who ever was foolish enough to cross the Border and make his home in London. We all do foolish things, especially in our youth, and, unfortunately, it is now much too late for me to retrieve that which was lost and to make a new beginning. So it is that I find myself on a somewhat unequal footing with respect to the noble Earl who has raised this interesting discussion, inasmuch as—if I may use our own language—his foot is on his native heath, and he is speaking about places which are, obviously, much more familiar to him than they are to me. But I will do my best to reply.
Before doing so, may I say that I think that my noble friend who has just addressed your Lordships was not justified

415
in poking fun at the quaint names of Scottish villages, particularly as he comes from Wales. My noble friend the Earl of Glasgow has done a useful service in raising this matter this afternoon, because it gives us an opportunity of discussing a number of important questions affecting, in a very direct way, the prosperity and social well-being of the people of Scotland. Towards the end of his speech, the noble Earl referred to a place in England—Crawley in Sussex. In doing so he touched on a question upon which I find myself in very keen sympathy with him, namely, the danger, in building these new towns, of taking agricultural land. With regard to such places as Crawley, I am satisfied that the Ministry of Agriculture in England and, equally, the Department of Agriculture in Scotland are fully seized of the importance of this consideration of not giving up any agricultural land if it is possible to avoid doing so. While I have no special knowledge in that connexion, apart from what I have gained through communication, I have some special knowledge of another of the new towns that is going to be built in England—the one at Hemel Hempstead. The noble Earl may have noticed that, after a public inquiry had been held, the Minister announced that while the new town is going to be built at Hemel Hempstead the dimensions are to be reduced by nearly 2,000 acres. That is to say, 2,000 acres—or almost 2,000 acres—that were included in the original plan have now been restored and will be retained for agricultural purposes.
With regard to Crawley, before a decision was reached to designate an area of land for the establishment of a new town, the effect upon the surrounding countryside and upon agricultural interests in particular was very carefully considered, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. Much of the land in the Crawley neighbourhood was, however, already lost to agriculture as the result of a considerable amount of scattered building development of suburban type which had taken place in the area between the two wars. Villages in the district had, moreover, lost their separate identities owing to urban developments which had occurred between them. As much as possible of this scattered development and as little as possible of farm land has been included within the designated area, so that at Crawley the effect of the new town on
416
farmers and village communities has been reduced to a minimum.
To return to Scotland in general and Ayrshire in particular, to which my noble friend the Earl of Glasgow devoted the main part of his speech, as your Lordships are aware, he speaks with a wide background of knowledge and experience in these matters, particularly in the county of Ayrshire, to which he has specially drawn your Lordships' attention in the terms of the Motion. Needless to say, I would not presume to deal with these local questions with quite the same degree of intimate detail as my noble friend, particularly on this, the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity of expounding in your Lordships' House some aspects of the planning policy which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is working out in association with the local planning authorities concerned. The noble Earl's Motion, however, is of more than purely local value and local interest. The questions which he has raised involve the wider issues of planning future development in many areas of Scotland in a manner which will ensure that the provision of employment, the provision of homes and the provision of the ever-increasing range of social facilities and services can be fitted together to form a real community pattern.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fully appreciates the need for preserving Scottish rural villages as healthy and vigorous communities, and his aim is to secure that, in appropriate cases, these villages are developed and extended and equipped with the full range of social facilities. The areas in the county of Ayrshire to which my noble friend made reference are not, however, rural villages in the ordinary sense of the word, but small isolated centres in which the principal, if not the sole, means of livelihood is coal mining. These centres were created substantially as a result of the industrial revolution of the 19th Century, at a time when there was no other planning aim beyond the simple provision of a sufficient number of houses near the pit-head to house the miners and their families in a collection of miners' rows, with no other facilities and services. My right honourable friend feels quite strongly that the sense of social and physical isolation which this type of 19th Century development involved is one of the worst heritages of the mining

417
industry, and has been more responsible, I perhaps, than any other single cause for the tragic misunderstandings that have so often affected the miner in his relationship with his fellow industrial workers and the community at large.
My right honourable friend fully shares the views of the Scottish Coalfields Committee that, in future, in planning our new housing and other developments, the aim should be to create mixed communities in which the miner and his family can live in association and in human fellowship and can share the interests of their fellows in other trades and occupations. By community groupings of this kind better communal facilities and social services can be provided, a proper balance of employment can be secured, and the group centres can be made more attractive places to live in. In general, the local planning authorities in the existing mining areas of Scotland fully endorse this view, and they are working in the most harmonious relationship with my right honourable friend to give effect to these general objectives of policy.
Some of these conditions of physical isolation were present to a marked degree in the particular cases in Ayrshire to which my noble friend has referred. Glenbuck, for example, is a small centre comprising only about roc) houses, situated in the eastern part of the county and purely mining in character. The county council surveyed the area. They found that about eighty houses would be required to re-house families living in slum cottages and to provide for additional purely local needs. When my right honourable friend investigated the mining position in consultation with the Minister of Fuel and Power, it was ascertained that, while there were unwrought seams of coal in the Glenbuck area, these seams are so badly cut up by faults that the extraction of the coal would not be economic and that, broadly speaking, when the present mining operations had been completed—and this would be in a comparatively short period of time—there were no immediate prospects of further coal production in the Glenbuck area. In these circumstances, the county council were advised—and it is understood that they are in general agreement with this view—that the question of further housing provision at Glen-buck should be deferred, and that the housing need of the area should be made as part of the group community needs of
418
the much larger settlement of Muirkirk, about three-and-a-half miles to the west.
As regards Waterside, this centre is the smallest of the three main communities in the River Doon valley which, in very many respects, closely resembles in its physical characteristics the much more familiar mining valleys of South Wales to which my noble friend Viscount St. Davids referred a moment ago. These three communities are in close physical relationship to one another—in fact, they are not more than two miles apart—and further development at Waterside would mean the danger of a complete ribbon of housing development, purely for the miners and their families, extending up the valley and closely hemmed in on all sides. In these circumstances, the county council were asked to consider preparing a development plan for the whole valley, with the broad object of concentrating further housing development at the villages of Patna and Dalmellington at each end of the valley, where much better group facilities already exist and where the topography will permit of expansion on really good lines. It was also hoped that a plan prepared in this form would enable suitable sites to be selected for new industries to balance and diversify the present character of the valley and to provide other sources of employment. My right honourable friend is aware, however, that although the county council fully appreciate the merits of a scheme on these lines there have been local expressions of view about the desirability of providing further housing accommodation at Waterside, and he is prepared to pursue this aspect of the matter further with the county council.
I now turn to the question which my noble friend raised about the siting of the proposed new town in the parish of Coylton. Whatever local feeling there be in relation to the housing needs of existing small communities in Ayrshire—and my right honourable friend is fully conscious that local loyalties and local traditions in this historic county are very strong—he feels sure there will be no doubt in the minds of your Lordships that any new community in the area designed to meet substantial new coal mining developments must be planned in a comprehensive way, to provide real industrial diversification and a full range of social and community facilities. Two new sinkings in Ayrshire are planned as part of a comprehensive programme of

419
new mining developments in Scotland which the National Coal Board have in contemplation. One will employ upwards of about 2,000 miners and the other about 500 miners. Both are situated in close relationship to the site proposed for the new town. The larger pit will, in fact, be about two miles from the new town and the other a mile nearer.
These pits will not come into operation until 1953 at the earliest, but there is an urgent need in the area for about 500 houses to replace unfit and overcrowded houses which are reaching the obsolescent stage in neighbouring small villages. In addition, 500 new houses are urgently required for other miners who could be employed to increase production at existing pits. My right honourable friend has gone into this whole matter very closely with the Ayrshire County Council, and he has proposed, after these consultations with them, a site in the Coylton parish of the county for a new town to meet these needs. Some of the existing villages whose needs are being taken into account in planning the proposed new town are simply collections of miners' rows in which the houses are in a most deplorable condition. The vast majority have no water supply and no drainage and the houses themselves are condemned as unfit for human habitation. The county council propose to make an early start with the building of 500 new houses in this area. These houses will form a first instalment, as it were, of the proposed new town, and will be laid out in conformity with the new town plan.
The site of the proposed new town is very well situated for road and rail communication. It has a most attractive natural setting, and the Secretary of State is confident that it can be developed as a prosperous and thriving community and that new industry to provide alternate sources of employment can be attracted to the area. In this latter respect he is working closely with the President of the Board of Trade and the other Ministers concerned. Formal steps will be taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in due course to prepare a draft Order under the New Towns Act designating the site as the site of a proposed new town, and there will be full opportunity of hearing the views of all interested parties on the proposal. In conclusion, may I add that there is no intention of regarding
420
the proposed new town as a rigid and cast-iron plan which can in no circumstances be varied. We all know that no plan, however good it is, can possibly please everybody. Similarly, we know that no plan can be so perfect that it cannot be improved. Therefore, I can give my noble friend an assurance that every constructive suggestion from the county council, from other bodies and even from individual citizens, will be fully considered.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, before I briefly refer to what the noble Lord has said, I am sure that all noble Lords who live north of the Tweed will be delighted to know that Scottish questions in your Lordships' House are to be answered by a Peer from Scotland—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. I understand that Lord Morrison is an Aberdonian. Aberdonians throughout the world are admired for their shrewdness, and also, although some people doubt it, for their sense of humour.
I am very sorry, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the explanations—quite sympathetic in some ways of the noble Lord. Some of the things to which he made reference are things which our county council in their plan intend to carry out. But, as I said before, the point about our county council plan is that we want to carry out the wishes of the people, as well as to keep the population in the countryside. With all respect to the noble Lord, he did not make much reference to the wishes of the people. To my mind this is a very important point. Not one of these miners desires to be moved into a town. They all want to go into the existing villages. They much prefer to go into a small community rather than into a large town. The noble Lord mentioned that the new town was going to have facilities for the wives and daughters of these miners, and so on. That is exactly what we want. That is what the county council wish to set up in these existing villages which are close to the minefields.
I was told before I left Ayrshire that the distance from the new town to some of the coalfields was further than were the coalfields from some of these villages which the noble Viscount from Wales said had unpronounceable names. It is quite true that the miners, if they work in these villages, would be very near to their work. I am quite prepared to say,

421
and I do not think I shall be taken up upon it, that I am representing thousands of miners and their wives in Ayrshire. I am representing their wishes. Although the county council have agreed officially to the Government plan, I do not believe that it is in their thoughts. I think that they would much prefer to have the miners housed in the existing villages. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, does not like unnecessary

INCUMBENTS (DISCIPLINE) MEASURE, 1946.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1946, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by reminding your Lordships that if a Church Assembly Measure is to be presented for the Royal Assent, a Motion to that effect has to be passed not only by both Houses of Parliament but by both Houses in the same Session. In the last Session I moved an identical Resolution to that which I am now moving, and your Lordships accepted it. It was, however, very near the end of the Session, and the corresponding Motion never ca me forward in another place. In this Session a corresponding Motion affecting this Measure, The Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, has already passed through another place in proper form, and it is now my duty to present for the second
Divisions, but I consider that when I am representing, as I am, the wishes of a large number of people as to their future lives, I should ask your Lordships' opinion on this Motion, and that I propose to do so.
On Question: Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS:

Beauchamp, E.

Stonehaven, V. [Teller.]

Glentanar, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Selborne, E.

Courtauld-Thomson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fairlie, L.(E. Glasgow.) [Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

NOT-CONTENTS:

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ammon, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Normanby, M.

Darwen, L.

Morrison, L.

Gorell, L.

Pakenham, L.

Addison, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Holden, L.

Shepherd, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Walkden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

time this Resolution before your Lordships in this House.
I am in something of a difficulty. Last October I gave a somewhat full description of this Measure, which is complicated, and it took me some little time to describe the various stages of proceeding under it. At the same time I answered one or two criticisms which had been made of the Measure. I do not wish to detain your Lordships unnecessarily by repeating now in detail all I said last October. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to suppose that your Lordships are ready without more ado to say that you have not changed your minds since this matter was before you in October. On the other hand, in another place there was quite a considerable debate upon this Measure, and a strong body of opposition to it, and it finally passed by only a small majority. For all I know, some of your Lordships may wish to raise in debate some of the many points that were raised in another place. But, again, it does not seem to me to be reasonable to make that assumption and, on that assumption, for me, in presenting this Measure for a second time, to answer by anticipation all the possible points which might be raised upon it. I propose, therefore, to move my Motion in a very few words, and very briefly to summarize what

423
I said in the last Session; and then, if it is in order, if any debate follows, I might be able to reply to points which may be raised before the Motion is finally put.
Quite briefly, the Measure deals with those rare but distressing cases in which there is a complaint against an incumbent of serious, persistent or continuous neglect of duty, or of conduct unbecoming the character of the clerk in Holy Orders. The Measure is very largely the work of the House of Clergy in the Church Assembly, who devoted over a long period their constant attention to it. The reason why they did that is twofold: first, that they were more anxious than anybody that there should be an effective system of discipline for use in such cases; and, secondly, that the existing machinery for dealing with such cases was on all hands regarded as unworkable and obnoxious. This Measure was prepared to take the place of the Ecclesiastical Duties Measure of 1926, which in fact is now a dead letter. I think even the critics of this Measure agree that it is a better Measure than the one which it is replacing.
As I said last October, the Church Assembly have spent a great deal of time upon this Measure—something like fourteen years all told. It has been through every conceivable stage. It was referred at one time to every diocesan conference in the country, and their recommendations came back. To deal with it there was an appointed Committee of some eighty members which was the largest there had ever been in the Church Assembly. Every person who had any objection to the Measure himself sat on that Committee, so that the critics had a very full hearing in the preparation of the Measure.
To secure this end of a proper discipline in cases of continuous neglect or unbecoming conduct, the Measure contains a multiplicity of provisions and safeguards to secure three things: first, that any frivolous or unsubstantial complaint shall be ruled out before the stage of a regular charge is reached at all; secondly, that no charge shall go forward to the trial of an incumbent unless in the judgment of a ministerial committee of six clergymen, elected by the clergy of the diocese, there is a true bill to be tried; thirdly, that, so far as is humanly possible, there shall be no chance of any miscarriage of justice. The Measure is, I
424
would say, quite strictly a domestic one, concerning the Church in its inner life and in its own discipline. Your Lordships will bear that in mind and not wish, I hope, to quarrel with it unless you see something of a public nature which should lead you so to decide.
Finally, I may say that the Ecclesiastical Committee appointed for the purpose of scrutinizing Assembly Measures did so scrutinize it at great length, and they discussed it with the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly. I would draw your Lordships' attention to some paragraphs of their Report to this House. They say that any Measure of this nature must necessarily affect the lives of incumbents—that is what it is there to do, when an incumbent deserves dealing with—but they are satisfied that the Measure safeguards the rights of incumbents so far as is practicable, having regard to its objects. The Committee go on to say that otherwise the Measure does not affect the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects. Finally, they say—and I will read this paragraph in full:
"On some points of detail the Measure may be open to criticism. The Ecclesiastical Committee, however, are convinced, as a result of their conference with the Legislative Committee, that there is a real need for the Measure and that procrastination rather than improvement will be the probable result of further consideration of its terms by the Church Assembly. Accordingly, the Ecclesiastical Committee are of opinion that it is expedient that the Measure should proceed."
As I have indicated, there are grounds of detail upon which this Measure is quite certainly open to criticism. My own criticism, which I mentioned in October, is that it is so overloaded with safeguards that it will be an extremely cumbrous Measure to work. But even so, it is an improvement on the Measure which is at present the law of the land, and I would therefore ask your Lordships to concur with the Ecclesiastical Committee by confirming your previous decision in this matter, and to agree to the Motion which I now beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1946, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I venture to intervene for a few moments

425
to lend my support to this Measure, which was so clearly and cogently proposed to us on a previous occasion by the most reverend Primate. Speaking as a layman, I must say that I think a Measure of this kind is not only necessary but long overdue. There are, fortunately, but very few cases of what I may call misconduct among the priests of the Church; but where such cases do occur, then surely it is right that there should be a power to deal with them. Your Lordships' have already passed a Bill dealing with those who become senile or debilitated. That passed by common consent. There may be hardships because a priest grows old in the discharge of his office but, quite rightly, it was felt that if he could not adequately discharge his duty to his congregation he should cease to hold office. How much more right and necessary is it that the few cases of those who fall gravely short should be dealt with?
I do not think there will be any difficulty in agreeing what is conduct unbecoming the character of a clerk in Holy Orders. You can raise dialectical points on this but, from time immemorial, there have been in fact no difficulties in administering a similar standard of conduct in His Majesty's Forces. Even the Judges of the Realm hold their position quamdiu se bene gesserit. For the benefit of those on this side of the House, perhaps I may say that that means "for as long as they do not misbehave themselves." Indeed, the only persons who are not subject to such a rule are His Majesty's Ministers, and they are possibly subject to a more continuous judgment and to au even wider tribunal. But, seriously, is it unreasonable that this rule should apply to the beneficed clergy? It has been said by some that it is an encroachment upon what is called the "parson's freehold." That is an expression which I have never been very anxious to defend. When a man is appointed to a living great care is taken—and quite rightly—to see that he is satisfactory, and that he will receive general support. What is this freehold? I do not think it is a freehold. I think it is a sacred trust which he holds, and that the beneficiaries are his parishioners. If he fails grievously in that trust, then surely it is right that he should no longer continue in office.
I have only one criticism to make of this Measure. I think it is, as the most
426
reverend Primate has just said, so hedged around by safeguards that it will be extremely difficult to remove anybody. An offending clergyman is not tried once by his peers; he is tried over and over again, as I read the Measure, by his peers and by associated laymen. He has not one chance of appeal; he has a whole series of chances of appeal. Whether it be at the polls or other tribunals, few of us have so many chances. I think this Measure is weighted in favour of the incumbent, but at any rate great care has been taken to make it fair beyond peradventure. It is not for us to criticize or amend that. What is before us to-day, I think, is the simple principle whether in those very rare cases in which a priest fails, and grossly fails, in his duty and in his trust, there should be a right to remove him. To that there surely can, in this House or anywhere else, be but one answer.
VICOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, it falls to my lot to support this Motion on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, and I do so with great readiness.
4.17 p.m.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am quite certain that the House will be in favour of the objectives of this Measure. The most reverend Primate, however, was good enough to say that he would deal with any problems in the minds of members of your Lordships' House, and accordingly I want to ask him if he will set my mind at rest on one or two matters. In the first place, I think it is not perhaps generally realized that during the whole period of its gestation this Measure has been highly controversial and giving rise to great differences of opinion. It is true that it has emerged from its fifteen years in the womb of the Church in a very much better condition than it was originally, but I must say it is hardly a recommendation that in the second half of paragraph (2) of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was quoted by the most reverend Primate, it is said:
"Indeed the Committee are inclined to think that the safeguards may prove in practice to be so numerous and cumbersome as to impair the efficacy of the Measure."
It does not seem to be a very strong recommendation, if I may venture to say so, that already they say it may not prove to be efficacious.

427
The controversy which has arisen on every side in connexion with this Measure does indicate that there is a majority in almost every case who are either opposed to it, or so Luke-warm in their feeling for it that they have abstained from supporting it. It is true, as was mentioned by the most reverend Primate, that there was a very close Division in another place, a Division giving a majority of only 12 in a House, I believe, of 640 members. As a matter of fact, only about 150 members took part, of whom 86 supported and 74 opposed. In the Church Assembly there was the same problem: from the Report of the Committee it would appear that only 11 Bishops supported and 8 Bishops opposed the Measure, while 25 Bishops abstained from voting.
These are important figures. I may be wrong, but I think that shows very doubtful support in the leading and most important part of the Church. Even among the clergy there were more abstensions than there were those who supported the Measure, and the small majority secured in support was only something like 20 out of a total House of about 200 or 300. The laity were, of course, more in support, but even so there were about 120 abstensions. Again, in the diocesan conferences there were a very large number of amendments sent in, practically none of which was included in the final Measure. I think I am right in saying that thirty diocesan conferences sent in something like ninety-five amendments in all, and only six were included.
This Measure will of course go through; and I would not dream of opposing it, because I think it is a very necessary Measure. But the brief analysis I have given does indicate to the Church that it would be desirable to exercise very great discretion in carrying out the administration of the Measure, because of the doubtful support or widespread opposition. I am quite certain that the most reverend Primate, together with those who support him and the whole body of the Church, will have this in mind in dealing with disciplinary problems which will arise in its administration.
There are two possible reasons for the controversy, one of which is that protection is provided for incumbents in con
428
nexion with social and political opinions—this is in Clause 2 of the Measure—but there is no protection provided for political activities. I think that this needs a little definition. For example, if an incumbent has political opinions, that is all right; but suppose he turns those political opinions into political actions. Suppose he takes the chair for the local Labour Party candidate or for the local Tory candidate; is that a political activity which might be used as a cause for disciplinary action? I seem to remember the case of an incumbent who used the Parish Magazine for a series of violent political attacks. Is that a political activity, and might it be the cause of disciplinary action? After all, I suppose that even Bishops in your Lordships' House are taking part in political activity, and what is most desirable on their behalf might be very desirable in the case of some incumbents. I well remember that when I was fighting a Parliamentary election the incumbents very frequently took part in political activities to the advantage of all concerned, and even myself when they were opposed to me.
The only other point on which I feel a little anxiety is the private discussion which may go on between the incumbent to be disciplined and the Bishop who, if requested in writing, may discipline him. It is very well known that sometimes in conversations there are different ideas in people's minds as to what exactly was said, and it would seem to be desirable perhaps that an incumbent, trembling at the whipping block in fear lest the Bishop will inflict upon him one of the many punishments at his disposal, may lose his head—metaphorically speaking of course, because that power is not in the hands of the Bishop—and forget some of his points. Were he accompanied by a friend of calmer disposition, in the circumstances he might perhaps be able to make his point better, and secure justice. This is, of course, important because there is no appeal provided when the incumbent requests in writing that the Bishop shall undertake the necessary disciplinary action instead of one of the other means being used.
I hope therefore—and this is the only hope I express in this connexion—that these powers will be used with great discretion. And, bearing in mind the controversial nature of the acceptance of the

429
proposals on the part of those who were responsible, may we have an assurance from the most reverend Primate that there will be very great care taken against any great injustice in its application?
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I would like to say a few words in support of the last speaker. I do not wish to repeat all his arguments, but I would like to ask the most reverend Primate if he would point out to the ecclesiastical authorities concerned the long list of opposers to this Measure in another place, and ask them to consider not only the arguments of the noble Lord who has just spoken but also the arguments which were there given. The last speaker did not mention one important point about the debate in another place, which was that the final vote was taken just before one o'clock in the morning, and in point of fact the result might have been even narrower if a larger number of members had been present to listen to the debate and realize what weighty objections were being offered. I would especially ask the most reverend Primate to lend his good offices in this matter and bring these points to the notice of his colleagues who have to administer this otherwise most necessary piece of legislation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, so far as I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Marley, I gather that his doubts as to this Measure arise on two points. First, he doubted whether this really had the backing of Church opinion, pointing out in his speech that in certain of the divisions in the Church Assembly there was a high percentage of abstentions and also a high percentage of opponents. In regard to the abstentions, I would remind the noble Lord that the time of gestation—the extremely long gestation—of this Measure, was the time of the late War, and attendance at the Church Assembly suffered in the same way as did attendance at Parliament, for reasons which I am sure he will recognize. In regard to whether this Measure really has the support of the Church, I can assure him that few Measures have ever received such careful or thorough consideration as this has.
I would ask your Lordships to remember that the Church Assembly differs from Parliament in that it is a Parliament of
430
three Houses, whereas we are a Parliament with only two, and for any one House of the Church Assembly to decide by a majority against any point in any Measure is sufficient for that point to fall to the ground. Therefore in the Assembly you need to have a degree of unanimity greater than is necessary in Parliament, for the simple reason that it is more difficult to get three people to agree on any one point than it is to get two. Apart from that, this Measure has been referred to the diocesan conferences of England. Just consider what would happen if in the case of an Act of Parliament we were ever asked to refer it to the county councils. Your Lordships would find the delay intolerable, and if it came back from the county councils with their support your Lordships would not accept the plea that the Measure had been insufficiently considered or that it had not the backing of public opinion behind it.
The truth is, my Lords, that this Measure has been more carefully considered, I suppose, than any other which I can remember. Moreover, there is no matter on which the laity feel more keenly or deeply. We all admire and honour our clergy immensely, and I think most men feel the great strength that the system of the parson's freehold has in the past brought to the Church. That is not saying that it is incapable of amendment or improvement. The freehold of the parson, however, does lead, in exceptional cases, to devastating situations in particular parishes where a priest, either through senility or any other cause—without committing any crime, without committing any act on which you could impeach him for a breach of the law or a breach of the Ten Commandments—by his conduct forfeits that public respect which is absolutely necessary for the success of his mission.
That is the very difficult case with which the Assembly has tried to deal in this Measure. The solution is that the incumbent shall be tried by his peers, which I think is a good solution. His peers know the difficulties which face any incumbent; and indeed they are very real. There is no body of men more jealous of the reputation of the clergy than the clergy themselves. Therefore, my Lords, we laity are well content that this matter should be judged as laid down in this Measure by the clergy, and I agree with

431
what has been said, that the safeguards contained in this Measure against any possible injustice to any individual are so full that injustice is very unlikely to occur. I can assure the noble Lord that a question such as that of taking the chair at a political meeting is not the sort of questions that the promoters of this Measure have in mind. They are matters of a very different nature, and, as I have already said, are best dealt with and best decided by the clergy themselves under the safeguards proposed by the Measure. I therefore hope your Lordships will pass the Measure.
4.38 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in favour of this Resolution and for the courteous way in which the noble Lord put to me a certain question which I have already in part answered. It is perfectly true that around this Measure there has been a great deal of controversy of one kind or another. It has been rather hydraheaded: the moment you hit off one head, another grew and you never quite knew where the body of the hydra was. It must be some comfort to the critics of the Measure that the Ecclesiastical Committee said that the safeguards were so numerous as to impair its efficiency, but I should not myself take that ground because I think that in necessary cases it will work. But in every great controversy there comes a time when a decision has to be made; in this country the decision is made finally by a vote, and the result of that vote is taken as conclusive. Both in another place and in the Church Assembly itself there were the necessary votes, which is our democratic way of putting a term to controversy, and I come to you with the deliberate decision of the Church Assembly that they wish this Measure to pass.
I do not think that anything is gained by inquiring as to why so many Bishops were absent, because it can be only pure guesswork. I ventured to say in October that some felt that as to some extent they would be administrators they would rather leave the Measure to the other two Houses. The really important thing is that the laity, by a majority of 81 per cent. of those present, voted in favour of the Measure; which does show the real opinion, because it is the laity who suffer when these un
432
fortunate cases occur. May I just refer very briefly to a particular point which the noble Lord raised? When the Measure went to the diocesan conferences many of them sent in points which they decided they would like amended. Some of them were accepted. All the points—and this is the important thing—were very carefully considered, and those which commanded the general assent of the revising body were accepted. The general intention of the diocesan conferences, however, was that the Measure should go forward, after due consideration had been given to what they had to say. That due consideration was given.
May I say just a word on the point that the Measure ignores political opinion but not political activities. That is a most subtle point which, when it was raised, took all of us in the Church Assembly by surprise. If I may venture to say so, this is the first time in history that the Church Assembly has ever inserted in a Measure a clause to protect anybody from attack on the ground of his political opinions. The Church Assembly were themselves supremely anxious that that lever should not be used against an incumbent, and therefore went to the trouble, as they thought, to exclude it altogether, putting in "political opinions." It really took us very much by surprise when we were then attacked for not having excluded political activities.
Things such as taking the chair at a political meeting were exactly the sort of things which the Church Assembly wanted to exclude, but it would have been extremely difficult to have put in the word "activities," because the phrase would run "social or political opinions or activities." There are certain social activities which are extremely undesirable. I suppose that to join a group of people every night and to get drunk with them is a social activity. Therefore one cannot just exclude every social activity, nor, I would say, in passing, can one really exclude all and every form of political activity, because political activity might itself be such as to conflict with the proper discharge of a parson's duty. In that case, he ought to be liable, under this Measure, for a proceeding. This is a free country, and I assure the noble Lord that in the Church, as outside, we recognize the

433
right of a man to his own opinions and to the free expression of them. The clergy and the ministerial committee are men of common sense, and they will not in the least wish to veto any political activity which naturally goes with political opinion.
That brings me to the last matter to which I wish to refer. The noble Lord has urged that discretion should be used in the administration of this Measure. I feel that criticisms which have been made of it have been based on a supposition that the Bishop, to begin with, and the ministerial committee, the clergy, and even the special tribunals, are going to be bereft of any common sense. The fact is, I think, that we are all sensible men, and we are dealing with a matter which distresses us immensely. It distresses us to think that we might be unjust to any single person, any incumbent, for it is a grave matter to inflict a judgment on any of our brethren. But we are also most anxious to see that no parish suffers. Your Lordships may be certain that nothing will be done under this Measure, by the Bishops or by the clergy, without most anxious, deep and grave thought. I have no kind of fear that any case will arise under this Measure which will be frivolous, unsubstantial, or improper in any kind of sense.
I do not think that this is the last that will be heard of clergy discipline in the future. I hope that the Church may find a better system of Ecclesiastical Courts than it now has. In this respect we suffer from a heritage of the past. One knows that the Church would welcome some revision and some better ordering of the system of Ecclesiastical Courts. When that time comes, I hope that this matter of discipline may take another form. Meanwhile we have to act in the position in which we now are, and I would ask your Lordships to say, not that this is a perfect Measure or a perfect system of discipline, but that it is an improvement on that now in force, that it is the wish of the Church to have this Measure, and that you desire to encourage them to attack a thing which, though rare, when it occurs is a very serious evil.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
4.45 p.m.

COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF INDIAN SERVICES.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to ask His Majesty's Government, what are their intentions for securing compensation for members of the Indian Services in the event of their employment coming to an end owing to political and constitutional changes, and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Viscount said My Lords, very few words will be needed to call your Lordships' attention to the matter with which my question deals. It is, as I think will be admitted, both a very important and a very urgent question, for it concerns the anxiety which is widely entertained by members of the Indian Services as to their position and prospects if there come about the political and constitutional changes which are, in some quarters, so widely expected to take place in India. It is not only the Indian Civil Service that may be involved, though they alone would be entitled to the attention of Parliament. I think there are something over 2,000 people in that Service, and of that number about 1,000 are Indians. For the most part, they passed a very strenuous examination, though I think some recent appointments have been made by a different method. They have undertaken this highly honourable and responsible service in India as their life work, and they claim that if the changes which are in some quarters contemplated do take place, then the basis on which they were led to enter the Service and upon which they have been endeavouring to discharge their duties may be very fundamentally altered.
I do not claim to be specially informed on the subject, and I have no wish to be more dogmatic than I should be. Your Lordships' House contains on this, as on nearly every other subject, one or two Members who are really experts. I see that my noble friend Lord Hailey is here, and I hope that he will follow me. He is a complete master of this situation, not only because of his lifelong work in India and the posts which he has there held, but because he is still the recipient of communications expressing the anxieties of those who have followed him in the Service. I am very glad to see, also, the last of the ex-Viceroys of India here in our House. He has come here, I have

435
no doubt, to take part in this brief discussion. As I say, it is not only members of the Indian Civil Service who are involved. There are the members of the Indian Police, for whose efforts to maintain law and order in terribly difficult times we have good reason to be most grateful. I think that the Indian Forestry Service is another example, and there are some cases also within the Military Service, which I will not pause to describe now.
What is it that these gentlemen are so anxious about—for the fact of their anxiety I am sure can be rightly accepted, and will be proved by my noble friend Lord Hailey in a few minutes? They feel that what is now said to be imminent is going to make their continued position in India, in some cases, one which they really cannot undertake; that the change which may come about is of a sort which, as a matter of good sense and fairness—I am not speaking about legal technicalities—completely alters the position which they undertook. This was mentioned in a brief passage in the debate on India which we had, I think, on December 16, when the noble Lord opposite was good enough to reply. I must confess that I am moved to put down this question largely because of what has happened since then. I have before me a very important dispatch from Delhi, from The Times' correspondent, which appeared on Wednesday, January 22. In it he refers to recent events which we know have occurred. The Under-Secretary of State for India, Mr. Arthur Henderson, was dispatched there in order, amongst other things, to discuss questions of compensation of this sort on the spot. I would most briefly bring your Lordships' minds to the issues with which I am concerned by reading three paragraphs from this dispatch. This is one of them:
"It is common ground between both Governments, and the view is also shared by members of the services affected, that the present invidious position under which officials are expected to serve under two masters must be ended as soon as possible, thus enabling the Indian Government to claim the undivided allegiance of the officials who remain and to release others who may be unwilling to transfer their allegiance to an India &"
I will not read the rest of the sentence because it deals with the question of whether India will be within the British Commonwealth or not. I sincerely hope that it will.
That is really a very serious paragraph. I do not know that I have previously appreciated that it is correct to speak of the two Governments but, at any rate in the judgment of this experienced correspondent, matters have come to the point when there are two Governments interested in the administration of India and that creates an invidious position in respect of those officials of whom I speak. You can well believe that it does. I am speaking only from what I have read in the papers. I have read that Mr. Nehru has made it known that, while he would be willing to continue certain of these officers in the service of the Government which he envisages in the future, he draws the line at those officials who took an active part in endeavouring to suppress the rebellion which broke out in many parts of India in 1942, when Japan was at the gate and when there was, for the moment, beyond any question, the most dangerous movement going on in India—a movement which was by no means calculated to secure the defeat of the enemy. If I put myself in the position of one of these Indian civil servants and think of that statement, I cannot help sympathizing a great deal with the anxieties of these people, and I begin to appreciate the invidious and conflicting position referred to in that paragraph.
The second paragraph that I would like to read is this:
"The moral and legal grounds on which the case for compensation for what is virtually premature termination of contracts with the Secretary of State for India, involving deprivation of prospects and earning capacity for varying periods, may be assumed to have been put effectively by the British spokesmen. But as well as these grounds there is the further argument that the concession in principle now of the right to compensation when an officer decides to retire prematurely would prove a reassuring factor, and would persuade many officers to remain and serve the new India for as long as they were wanted."
I do not for a moment doubt that Mr. Aruthur Henderson and those with him, as this newspaper asserts, have put very effectively their view as the British spokesmen. But, of course, if they have done so they have done so on instructions from the Secretary of State who is here. I do not ask for the details of those instructions; I can well understand that, as a matter of fact, it would be most imprudent to ask now for a detailed declaration with figures and conditions. I do not ask for any-

437
thing of the kind, but what I do say is this: that the question is justified, even if it were only for the purpose of giving some comfort to these anxious and loyal people and to show them that in Parliament itself there are members who are watching and taking an interest in their position.
But it is more than that. My noble friend, with his invariable courtesy, told me that from his point of view he would prefer this question to be postponed, because he would not be able to announce a full decision. I quite understand his point of view but, frankly, I want to call attention to this matter before a final decision in detail is arrived at. It seems to me that these people are entitled to know that Parliament is taking an interest in their welfare and possible future.
The third paragraph which I wish to read, says this:
"Failing such an assurance, it is unlikely that many British officers would be convinced by any guarantee from the present interim Government of the same pay and conditions of service as they now enjoy, but would apprehend progressive deterioration in conditions, once the Secretary of State's protection was withdrawn, and would, therefore, want to get out without delay."
That reference to the Secretary of State's protection is very important. I am not presuming to give a short lecture on the Indian Constitutional and Statutory Law: that is one of the most complicated subjects there is, and I am not interested for the moment in the precise language of these Statutes. But this will not be denied am quite sure that my noble friend the ex-Viceroy or Lord Hailey will not deny it—that safeguarding the legitimate interests of members of the public service in India is a special responsibility which falls upon the Secretary of State, who gives suitable directions to the Viceroy. It is not a matter of which we can wash our hands at all.
Finally, I wish to make it quite clear that there is a distinction between getting a proportionate pension, and getting what is here referred to as "compensation." The India Civil Service, as a result of various Statutes and Regulations, have the right to a proportionate pension if they retire prematurely with the assent needed. Nobody suggests that that right is going to be taken away. My point is that their anxiety is not about their proportionate pension but about what is going to happen to them in the future if
438
they feel they must give up that livelihood. Many men of thirty, forty, or anything up to fifty-five years of age may get alternative occupations. But consider the case of the Indian Police. The heads of the Indian Police—I have had occasion to meet some of them—discharge the most onerous duties, and they do it under conditions which are wholly different from any conditions of police work in this country. I must say I foresee the greatest difficulty in ensuring that they get a just and adequate pension.
I will not say more. I would very much sooner that your Lordships listened to those who know far more than I do about it. However, it is from nothing but a sincere conviction that it is our duty in Parliament to take note, and to show these men that we do take note, of the trials through which they are passing, that I have ventured to put this question on the Order Paper. I beg to move for Papers.
4.59 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETRICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I regret that it is not possible for me at this juncture to make anything more than a brief reply to the question put to me by the noble Viscount. I have only to say that this matter of compensation to members of the Secretary of State's service, when their appointments under the Secretary of State are terminated as a result of constitutional changes, has been under the consideration of His Majesty's Government for some time past. As your Lordships will be aware—and in fact the noble Viscount referred to it—Mr. Henderson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma, has recently returned from a visit which he made to India for the purpose of discussing the matter with members of the Indian Interim Government. The outcome of these discussions is at present under active examination by His Majesty's Government, so that it is not possible for me to make any statement. Noble Lords can rest assured, however, that the point which the noble Viscount has made, and any points and arguments which other noble Lords to-day put forward, will be taken into full consideration by His Majesty's Government, if indeed there are any points in respect of which His Majesty's Government are not already fully cognizant and seized.

439
The importance, from all points of view, of reaching and announcing a decision in the matter at the earliest possible date is fully appreciated, and every effort will be made to dispose of the question as speedily as circumstances permit. I regret that I cannot go further than that to-day but I am quite sure that any of your Lordships who have been members of a Government examining such a matter as is under discussion would take precisely the same point of view as that which I take and which I have enunciated in these remarks. Perhaps I might make one small correction of fact to something which the noble Viscount said. I think it would I be a pity to let a mistake of fact go by. He said that there were 2000 members of the Indian Civil Service. He doubled it. As a matter of fact it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I was relying on the newspaper, which no doubt is very well informed, which said that the Civil Service contains 1,250 Europeans and 1,000 Indians. Perhaps it should have been the services in India.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The noble Viscount said that in the Indian Civil Service there were 2,000 members and that there were more in the police and other services.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I accept the correction.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I wanted it to be correct.
5.5 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I am sure that there is no member of the services in India who will not be grateful to the noble Viscount for endeavouring to obtain from His Majesty's Government some clear statement which will help to mitigate some of the very natural anxieties that they now feel. I cannot feel, I regret to say, in spite of the cogency and conviction with which he spoke, that the noble Viscount has succeeded in getting that clear statement from the Secretary of State which he, and the members of the serving services in India, would have liked to obtain. We are assured that His Majesty's Government have this matter under their most careful consideration, and that they fully appreciate the urgency of the position; but I cannot feel equally sure that the services in India will
440
appreciate the somewhat nebulous assurances on the subject which they have received from the Secretary of State. If I venture to respond to the invitation which the noble Viscount was good enough to extend to me, and if I may venture to claim your Lordships' indulgence while I supplement his own statement of the case, and perhaps indeed if I am a little technical on the subject, it is because the members of the serving services in India have no opportunity of placing their case before Parliament, and yet it is Parliament that has a very special and peculiar responsibility for them.
If I may also, at the outset, just make one point clear—I am, of course, speaking entirely with regard to those civil services which have been recruited by the Secretary of State, which include, as has just been shown, a large number of Indian members; indeed no less than 1,000—I would point out that when I am addressing your Lordships' House I am referring equally to Indian members of these services. We members of the Civil Service in India have been wont to treat our Indian colleagues in the spirit of perfect comradeship. We have had no desire, and we do not desire to-day—nor do any members of the services in India—to see any distinction made in the treatment of the British and Indian members of those services.
There are two immediate and pressing points of concern to serving officers in India. In the first place, they desire to secure some announcement from His Majesty's Government as to the date on which their engagement with the Secretary of State will terminate, in the sense that they will then be free to seek alternative employment, either with the Indian Government or elsewhere. Secondly, they have a very deep and immediate concern with the question of compensation when that engagement is terminated. I will deal with the first point at once. At present they are in a position of uncertainty which can only aggravate the many anxieties which they feel on other grounds. Speaking in your Lordships' House on December 16, the Secretary of State said that the embargo on retirement on proportionate pension had been withdrawn and that those who wished to retire for personal reasons would now be free to do so. But as the services understand the position, they

441
still have to obtain permission from the Government of India to retire and there is no guarantee that this will not be deferred, especially if any considerable number wish to avail themselves of this permission. Meanwhile, the doubt as to the date of their release from their present engagement greatly embarrasses those who may wish to seek employment in England, for, of course, no one will consider an application from a man who cannot indicate with certain reasonable definiteness the time when his services are likely to be available.
Let me for a moment explain the implications in the announcement which I suggest should be made. Constitutionally, it would have the effect that there would no longer be in India officers of the civil administration who are responsible for carrying out such directions as the Secretary of Sate may give in order to secure the purpose of Parliament. Equally, officers recruited by the Secretary of State would no longer be entitled to that measure of protection from the Secretary of State which Parliament guarantees by the Acts of 1919 and 1935. Might I point out, in passing, that the protection held forth takes various forms. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against censure, against refusal to promote, against refusal to grant increments and against suspension. That refers merely, of course, to material conditions, but it can be readily understood that, outside these material conditions, there are matters in respect of which the Secretary of State, on appeal, is entitled to interfere. But what is the actual situation today? Whatever may be the former position, can it be said, in actual fact, that the officers recruited by the Secretary of State are now under his effective control?
In the Central Government these officers are at the orders of an Executive Council, which is responsible—I feel I shall fail if I endeavour to define the exact nature of the authority to which they are responsible. In the Provinces they are technically at the orders of the Governor, since all executive orders are issued in the name of the Governor But can we now expect to see any attempt on the part of the Governor to enforce, through the agency of the Secretary of State's services, any direction of the Secretary of State which runs counter to the wishes of Indian Ministers? I do not wish to overstate the case. I am not
442
saying that Parliament cannot come to its own decisions on matters of constitutional policy, and the like. I am speaking of the particular field of executive and administrative action in which members of the services operate. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that in this particular field the control has passed out of the hands of the Secretary of State, and even if the Secretary of State should decide to issue orders which conflicted with the desires of Indian Ministers, the officers appointed by him would not in practice be able to carry them out.
Why then should Parliament seek to retain a provision which, whatever value it possessed at one time, has not now, and cannot have, any reality? I am not discussing whether the political changes which have brought about this situation are a good thing for India or not; such a discussion would be entirely out of place today. I am on a question of practical fact. It was implicit in the policy approved by Parliament that sooner or later the officers of the civil services should cease to be responsible to the Secretary of State. The time has come sooner than many of us expected, and sooner perhaps than very many of us desired. But I put it that a declaration must be made fixing a definite date for terminating the present connexion between the Secretary of State and the officers he has recruited. As I have pointed out, such a declaration would be only just in the interests of the officers themselves; and I do not think Parliament should be deterred by the consideration that this might result in depriving India of a number of experienced officers who would otherwise be available to assist in carrying on the administration until the constitutional future of India is settled. If the Indian Government, or the individual Provinces of India, can offer them terms and conditions which will attract them to their service, well and good; but it may be an injustice to them to refuse to terminate their present engagement with the Secretary of State. I would add that I very gravely doubt whether such a refusal would be in the interests of India.
I come now to my second point. If the present engagements of the services are to be terminated, then the terms on which they are to be terminated become of the very highest importance to the serving members in those forces. Your Lordships

443
will remember that they were recruited on terms that offered them a full life's career in India. Take, for instance, the Indian Civil Service officers; they were to draw incremental pay on a time scale up to twenty-three years service, when they would become eligible for selection posts, and the number of those posts was such as to make it certain that, barring casualties, a very considerable number of them would attain them within the thirty-five years to which their service extends. It is true that their pensions are guaranteed, as the noble Lord pointed out, by a statutory regulation, and that those who now retire will do so on a proportionate pension; but retirement on a proportionate pension is part of the service rights now secured to them.
A certain number may obtain employment in England, and I should like to acknowledge the steps which are under consideration by Departments of the Home Government to offer vacancies to those who are suitable for that type of employment. A number may accept engagements with the Indian Government, and I wish to say nothing here which would prejudice this possibility. I will refrain from any comment on the sudden affection for the engagement of British personnel shown by some of the politicians who have been most prominent in the demand that we should quit India, bag and baggage. Looking only to the purely practical issue, it is clear that there must be many who cannot look forward to re-engagement in India. We know, and the noble Viscount has reminded us, that it would be unreasonable to suggest re-engagement to those who have been publicly marked down for reprisals on account of the part which they took in suppressing what was in effect a rebellion at a very critical stage of the war. It may be especially hard for officers of the Indian Police Service to expect such re-engagement. Their lot—again I can only repeat what the noble Lord has said—has been a most unenviable one, because at a time of acute communal disturbance it has been impossible for them to avoid incurring the disfavour of the partisans—including, of course, Indian Ministers—of either one or other of the great communities. I think they are entitled to our special sympathy and special consideration.
444
In any case, the conditions of work and the prospects of those members of the services who secure re-engagement will be different. They cannot expect the careers which were held out to them, nor the promotion of which they were assured by Parliamentary Statutory provision when they were recruited. And pay is not everything. There is much in the inducements of an Indian career that goes far beyond questions of pay. Even if we limit the considerations to questions of pay, however, it is clear that in India the members of the civil services would have to compete for all higher selection posts with those whose political or communal affiliations make them more acceptable to the Parties in power.
In consequence, the question naturally arises whether they are not entitled to compensation for the loss of the careers that were held out to them when they were recruited by the Secretary of State. Here the serving officers are in a difficulty. In a pamphlet issued in June, 1945, to Army and other officers, inviting applications for service in India the Secretary of State pointed out that the service of these new officers might be terminated prematurely as a result of constitutional changes. He added that this contingency would affect not only new recruits but such of the present members of the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Police as were serving at the time. He added that the precise terms to be granted in such event to present members of the services had not yet been settled—that seems a somewhat habitual phrase of the Secretary of State—but that they would not be less favourably considered as a whole than those applicable to the new entrants. That seemed, therefore, in principle at all events, to foreshadow some scheme of compensation.
Again, speaking in this House, on December 16, the Secretary of State said that a scheme of compensation for officers whose services under the Secretary of State might have to be terminated for constitutional reasons, had been drawn up, and was under discussion with the Government of India. Since then there has followed, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, the discussions of Mr. Henderson with the Government of India. If the reports in the Press are to be accepted, there has been very great opposition on the part of certain members of what I must now call, I presume, the Government of India. This

445
extended not only to the scheme of compensation which was proposed to them, but the whole principle of the grant of compensation. The Opposition—again quote from the Press—is headed by the present Home Member of the Interim Government, Mr. Vallabhai Patel.
I do not know the tenets that were put forward by His Majesty's Government—and in any case it would not be proper to discuss them here—but these communications in the Press and the knowledge of a great deal that lies behind them, have naturally renewed and accentuated the anxiety of the serving members of the Civil Service and the Police Service in India. They would all agree that it was natural, and indeed inevitable, that the Interim Government in India should be consulted on this question, but I venture to remind your Lordships that the claim of the services is emphatically one for which the final responsibility must rest, not with the Government of India, but with Parliament itself. Parliament has undertaken certain obligations to those who have been engaged by the Secretary of State, and those obligations, as the services see them, must be fulfilled, not as a result of discussions merely with the Government of India but by the decision in Parliament itself.
I hope I shall not weary the House if I proceed to be a little technical in giving a brief survey of the character of the obligations which Parliament has undertaken. I am afraid I must carry your Lordships back to the period when Parliament was discussing the reforms which led to the Government of India Act of 1919. There was then some apprehension expressed lest the measures which were contemplated (transferring, as your Lordships will recall, no inconsiderable part of the administrative functions of the Provincial Governments to Indian Ministers) might affect the conditions of service of the officers recruited by the Secretary of State. Parliament did not show itself insensible to that consideration The Joint Select Committee on the Bill recommended that
"every precaution should be taken to secure to the public servants the career in life to which they looked forward when they were recruited."
Parliament gave expression to that recommendation in Section 96 of the Act of 1919, and I hope I may be pardoned
446
if I quote the exact words, because they are important. The section states:
"Any person appointed before the commencement of this Act by the Secretary of State to the Civil Service of the Crown in India shall retain all his existing or accruing rights, or receive such compensation for the loss of any of them as the Secretary of State may consider just and equitable."
In spite of this, the Secretary of State found that there was still some uncertainty about the future of the services which was creating obstacles in the way of full recruitment. A recruiting campaign was then started, and the Secretary of State himself issued, in the form of a White Paper, a statement with reference to this section of the Act. He added:
"It cannot be anticipated that His Majesty's Government and Parliament will treat lightly their obligations to ensure that all pensions, current at the time, shall continue to be paid or"—
and these are the important words—
"that those officers whose services may have to be compulsorily terminated shall be adequately compensated."
It must be admitted that this declaration had in mind contingencies of a narrower range than those we now have to envisage. But when the Bill of 1935 was in contemplation, the Secretary of State stated in his evidence before the Joint Select Committee that the services were entitled to a reasonable expectation of special compensation when the careers of certain officials had been definitely injured by an abolition of posts. The Joint Select Committee itself went further and said, in paragraph 285 of its Report, that the whole body of service rights, from whatever source derived, might properly be regarded as forming a single code which the members of the all-India services then serving might equitably claim should not be varied, at least without a right to compensation, to their disadvantage. Parliament gave effect to this recommendation in Section 249 of the Act of 1935. That section deals with the maintenance of conditions of service, and says:
"If by reason of anything done under this Act the conditions of service of any person appointed to a civil service or a civil post by the Secretary of State have been adversely affected, or if for any otter reason it appears to the Secretary of State that compensation ought to be granted to, or in respect of, any such person, he or leis representatives shall be entitled to receive from the revenues of the Federation, or if the Secretary of State so directs, from the revenues of a Province, such compensation as the Secretary of State may consider just and equitable."

447
It may again be argued that here again Parliament had most prominently in view the need for making equitable provision for the loss of accruing rights suffered by particular individuals, for it still saw the future of the service as lying within the framework of the Constitution of 1935. It did not at that stage contemplate a position in which the services, if they continued to work in India at all, would do so under a different employer, deprived of the protection of Parliament and, it might even be, as servants of a Government which had declared its independence of the Crown. But it certainly might be argued, and with some force, that a fortiori the principle of compensation should be extended from individuals to the whole of the services alike, if they had to face the termination of the careers for which they were recruited.
In this respect the present position of the Secretary of State's services is not dissimilar to that which British officers in Egypt had to face when the constitutional changes of 1923 occurred in that country. I would commend to the Secretary of State and to Parliament the principles which were laid down in the Report of the Milner Commission of 1923. It remarked that persons who retired in the ordinary course of events were provided for by pensions which nobody felt to be inadequate. But it went on to say that it was quite essential that men who, under the new system, retired of their own accord, should retain the same favourable treatment as those with whose services the Egyptian Government might chose to dispense. It went on:
"In ordinary circumstances a man voluntarily resigning a public post before the normal time for his retirement does so at a certain sacrifice, but this principle does not apply when the conditions of service are essentially altered; in that case the officer should have the right to chose whether he will or will not go on serving under the altered circumstances, and if he chosen to retire he should be entitled to do so on the same terms as if his retirement had been compulsory."
That was a statement of principle which commended itself at the time to both the British and Egyptian Governments, and it was followed in practice. It is the principle which, I think, should be adopted in this case. The natural result would be that in considering the question of compensation we should not take into account that these officers are entitled to
448
proportionate pensions; in other words, compensation should be made available to all of them alike, when their engagements with the Secretary of State are terminated. That, then, is the case which the services might desire to put forward in regard to their immediate and most urgent anxieties. A declaration of a definite date for the termination of their present connexion with the Secretary of State is claimed by them as an act of justice to them, essential if they are to make arrangements for their future livelihood. The claim for compensation for loss of career is put forward as a claim of right, based on undertakings previously given by Parliament and by Secretaries of State, and it is for Parliament to decide in the last resort, and perhaps in any resort, the extent of the compensation which should be given to them.
I will add nothing now as to the consideration which members of these services might reasonably claim, not purely on grounds of right but on other and more general grounds, from the British Parliament, and the British Government. I can with confidence leave that plea to others who may be regarded as less partial than I am bound to be to the claims of old friends and old colleagues, both British and Indian, in those services. Though I fear that I have spoken at some length, I will add, if I may, one word which perhaps sums up the whole. The men now serving in India have stood loyally to their trust in circumstances which have imposed a much greater strain on them than any which we of an older generation can have experienced. They are now entitled to ask that Parliament, for its part, should not fail to honour the trust which they have reposed in the undertakings which they claim that Parliament has made to them.
5.32 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I desire in my turn to thank the noble Viscount for the public service which he has, in my opinion, discharged in putting down this question to-day. I desire first of all to associate myself most warmly with all that has been said in this debate in praise of the public services in India. I hope with all my heart that in the concluding phase of British rule in India we may not fail those who have loyally served India, or fail to treat with

449
proper generosity officers whose careers may be brought to a premature close through no fault of their own. The Government: of India, so far as I am aware, have up to now vouchsafed no expression of their views in this matter, but I, for one, cannot bring myself to believe that Indian statesmen, who are about to undertake new and honourable responsibilities if this great scheme of constitutional reform goes through, would wish to treat in any small or niggardly manner public servants, whether European or Indian, who have done their utmost for India and for the Indian people and who have shown themselves willing, very often in circumstances of great difficulty, to give loyal and efficient support to Indian Ministers as well as to European leaders. I shall not believe that until it is proved to me.
As has been said, it is to the Secretary of State and to Parliament that members of the services are entitled to look for protection and for equitable treatment. My hope and my counsel to serving officers—if I may venture to offer counsel to old friends—is that so far as possible they should continue, up to the moment when authority is finally transferred into Indian hands, to do their utmost to secure that the great endeavour upon which we are all engaged should be successfully achieved. Whether or not when the time comes the individual serving officer should undertake service under the new Government, under the new dispensation, is of course for each officer to judge for himself. But I submit that it is quite clear that if any serious or substantial feeling of discontent, or of unfair treatment, should lie in the minds of serving officers at this critical stage, it would be highly regrettable from every point of view.
I need not venture on any technical matters this evening, because the hour is late and that field has been most adequately covered by the two noble Lords who have already spoken. I confess that I should have liked to hear a few more technicalities from the Secretary of State, but I appreciate the difficult position in which he spoke to-day. I shall content myself, therefore, with the strong expression of my hope that the Secretary of State may very shortly—because speed in this matter is of the utmost importance—find himself able, in this grave and urgent matter, to make a public announcement
450
of a kind satisfactory to the services in India.
5.38 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF DOLOBRAN: My Lords, we have listened with great interest to the opinions of noble Lords who are great and acknowledged experts on Indian affairs. I will not detain your Lordships very long to-night, nor indeed is there anything that I can add to any great degree to what has already been said. I have intervened to-night only because I have some small knowledge of India and a certain number of good friends in the Indian Civil Service, and because I have a very deep and real appreciation of the work which has been done by that Service, not merely now but over a great many years of Indian history. It is my belief that had it not been for the magnificent work which that Service has done there could have been no progress in India, nor could there have been any question of self-government in India to-day. As the noble Marquess who has just sat down so truly said, these men, who have worked in extremely difficult conditions in a very bad climate for a great many years, with great problems of understaffing during the war, are now plunged into this very great anxiety about their future. I therefore regret very much that the noble Lord opposite should not to-night have been able to make some statement which would have done something to reassure them. With the noble Marquess, I can only hope that some statement of that kind may be very speedily forthcoming.
The question of compensation has been fully dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, but there is also the question of re-employment, and on that particular subject I would like to make one point. It seems to me that at the present time His Majesty's Government have possibly a larger number of jobs at their disposal, owing to the great nationalization measures, than have ever been within the patronage of any one Government at a previous time. Should these members of the Indian services be compelled, through circumstances over which I suggest they have no control, to abandon promising careers in India, those who are proved administrators of many years standing might well find employment in some of the great nationalization projects that are being put into force by His Majesty's Government. I suggest that many less worthy incumbents might be found. I

451
do recommend to His Majesty's Government that suggestion for the appointment of these officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, stressed the importance of some term being set to contracts between members of the Civil Service and the Secretary of State. This, if I may say so, seems to involve a very great point of policy because, after all, I have yet to learn that Parliament and the Secretary of State are not still responsible for affairs in India, and it does not seem to me that this uncertainty can be resolved until His Majesty's Government are in a position to state what will be their policy should the present negotiations reach a deadlock. I hope they do not result in a deadlock, but I must confess that recent events in India, and notably the recent statement by the Moslem League, fill me with great anxiety. I appreciate the very great difficulties that confront the Government, but I consider that a great deal of uncertainty could be removed, not only for us but particularly for those in the Indian Civil Service, if His Majesty's Government gave some idea of what the future is going to be. I do not see how we can possibly terminate those contracts until official control in India has been handed over to some Indian Government; and at the moment that prospect seems remote. I therefore hope that at some time we may have a statement of policy from His Majesty's Government.
5.44 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, I feel that this debate should not close without special mention of the British and Indian officers holding the King's Commission in the Indian Army. There are many members of your Lordships' House who, like myself, have served, and are serving still, in the Indian Army; one of them took his seat to-day. I think, however, that I am the only one present at this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, remarked that pay is not everything, and that is the particular point I would like to make to-night with reference to these officers. When I joined the Indian Cavalry in 1917 I, like any other young man joining, had to undergo training with a squadron and a battery of guns. I also had to pass a language test. It is rumoured that these Indian officers are to be given a chance to join the British Army, but I hope that that chance will
452
be in proportion to their capability in the Indian Army, bearing in mind their additional responsibilities. There is one other plea I would like to put forward to the Secretary of State. It is a compassionate case, because it is not actually covered by the routine orders as regards pensions, and so on. I have already written to the noble Lord's private secretary about one of these cases. There are certain borderline and hard luck cases, and I am sure he will give them re-consideration.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the Secretary of State made a short statement immediately after I sat down, as of course he was quite entitled to do, and I thank him for it. But I think those of your Lordships who have attended the debate will agree that very important and striking matter has been contributed by the noble Lords who subsequently spoke. I would wish especially to include, if I might, my noble friend Lord Lloyd behind me and my noble friend the Marquess of Willingdon, both of whom bear the names of fathers who devoted great service to India. It seems to me that the speeches which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Halley, and the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, prove conclusively that responsibility in this matter does rest with the Secretary of State for India. It is he who, by Statute—and by duty, if I may respectfully say so—is responsible for seeing that the legitimate interests of the Indian Civil Service are safeguarded. While, therefore, I quite appreciate that he would wish to arrive at a conclusion by negotiation with what we are now taught to regard as the Interim Government, I would most respectfully submit to his consideration that the real responsibility for seeing that justice is done in this case rests with him. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BURMA: PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.
5.48 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the protection of minorities is an essential condition of their proposals for the Government of Burma; how they contemplate that such protection can be provided; and whether the Burmese Constitution, when established, will be alterable by a majority

453
vote of the Legislature. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put on the Order Paper a short question which I wish to put to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India and Burma, with regard to the proposals of His Majesty's Government as to the Government of Burma. In regard to India, the policy of His Majesty's Government, as of their predecessors, has been made clear in principle. When the present President of the Board of Trade went to India in the midst of war, in the most difficult circumstances imaginable, he made it an essential condition of any arrangement that could be made with Indian leaders that minorities would be adequately protected. The same principle has been affirmed by the present Prime Minister, and by the noble Lord opposite, although I am bound to say that, so far as they are known, the methods by which that protection is to be carried out seem to me, and I think to others, to be very far from adequate.
When we come to Burma I cannot find a single word as to the protection of minorities in Burma proper—that is to say in the part of Burma which it is proposed to hand over to the Burmese Government. The numbers of the minorities are very considerable. There are, for instance, 1,100,000 Karens. I have taken these and other figures from the Statesman's Year Book. These are the people in what I might call Burma proper, in the plains. Then there are 150,000 Chinese, 887,000 Indians, 120,000 Indo-Burmans, 170,000 Anglo-Indians and 8,000 Europeans. Of course, provision is made for the future of the Border States, and I trust that their right to choose will be definitely and adequately assured. I was a little doubtful as to the proceedings mentioned in connexion with the negotiations, it being the declared object of both the Burma Government and the British Government to bring them under the jurisdiction of Burma, but I hope we may be quite certain that no undue pressure will be put upon them, and that they really will have absolutely free choice as to their future. If, however, they should elect to maintain their present position, and at the same time a Burmese Government is in power in Burma proper, a rather difficult question of access will, perhaps, arise with regard to the possible need of British forces to go in for their protection against their neighbours to the south-east.
However, I pass from that to ask this question. Supposing the principle of protection for minorities is to be reaffirmed, how is it to be done? I am speaking of minorities in Burma proper. I know, of course, that there is provision for communal representation by proportional voting, but, at the best, that will leave these minorities in a hopeless minority in the Burmese Legislature. Again, if you put it into the Burmese Constitution that they are to have protection in some other form, then the question arises whether the Burmese Legislature will be able to change their own Constitution. If that is the case, it is quite clear that that protection is no real guarantee for the future. I submit that, just as in India, the only real safeguard is an organic law providing protection not for minorities as a class but for every individual against discrimination on racial or religious grounds. That, of course, will involve two other things—an independent Supreme Court to interpret the law, and some power behind, in the position of Governor, to enforce it. That, so far as I can see, is the only way whereby adequate protection can be given. In the meantime I shall be glad to be told, if it is possible—and I know the courtesy and the readiness of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India and Burma, to answer if he can—what, so far as matters have gone up to the present, is in the minds of the Government.
5.55 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I can only answer the noble Lord in this way. The arrangements in connexion with the future constitution of Burma, reached in discussion with the Burma delegation, are fully set out in the Conclusions which have been laid before Parliament as Command Paper 7029. I was not clear, before the noble Lord spoke, what were the precise limitations of his question, whether he had in mind the position of the people of the frontier areas, or minorities strictly so-called. As regards the frontier areas, the position is explained in Paragraph 8 of the Command Paper to which I have just referred, and the arrangements proposed are designed to give full weight to the wishes of the Inhabitants of those areas.
As regards minority communities, the effect of the arrangements that have been reached is, as the noble Lord will observe,

455
that there shall be elected to the Constituent Assembly two members for each seat at present reserved to the Karen minority and to the Anglo-Burman minority in a Legislature under the Act of 1935. His Majesty's Government are confident that the question of the extent to which special provision in the future Constitution of Burma for the protection of minorities is called for in the circumstances of that country, will be fully present to the Constituent Assembly. The question of the manner by which the Burmese Constitution, when established, shall be alterable, is clearly one for the Constituent Assembly to consider.

MALTA (RECONSTRUCTION) BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Bill had been
456
endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that it 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

County Borough of Walsall;

Urban District of Royston;

Rural District of Dunmow;

Rural District of Hatfield.

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at two minutes before six o'clock.