Lords Sitting of 20 February 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  INDIAN POLICY.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I will, with your Lordships' permission, make a statement on Indian policy.

  1. It has long been the policy of successive British Governments to work towards the realization of self-government in India. In pursuance of this policy an increasing measure of responsibility has been devolved on Indians, and to-day the Civil Administration and the Indian Armed Forces rely to a very large extent on Indian civilians and officers. In the constitutional field the Acts of 1919 and 1935 passed by the British Parliament each represented a substantial transfer of political power. In 1940 the Coalition Government recognized the principle that Indians should themselves frame a new Constitution for a fully autonomous India, and in the offer of 1942 they invited them to set up a Constituent Assembly for this purpose as soon as the war was over.

  2. His Majesty's Government believe this policy to have been right and in accordance with sound democratic principles. Since they came into office they have done their utmost to carry it forward to its fulfilment. The declaration of the Prime Minister of March 15 last, which met with general approval in Parliament and the country, made it clear that it was for the Indian people themselves to choose their future status and Constitution and that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the time had come for responsibility for the government of India to pass into Indian hands.

  3. The Cabinet Mission which was sent to India last year spent over three months in consultation with Indian
  836
  leaders in order to help them to agree upon a method for determining the future Constitution of India so that the transfer of power might be smoothly and rapidly effected. It was only when it seemed clear that without some initiative from the Cabinet Mission agreement was unlikely to be reached that they put forward proposals themselves.

  4. These proposals, made public in May last, envisaged that the future Constitution of India should be settled by a Constituent Assembly composed in the manner suggested therein of representatives of all communities and interests in British India and of the Indian States.

  5. Since the return of the Mission an Interim Government has been set up at the centre, composed of the political leaders of the major communities, exercising wide powers within the existing Constitution. In all the Provinces, Indian Governments responsible to Legislatures are in office.

  6. It is with great regret that His Majesty's Government find that there are still differences among Indian Parties which are preventing the Constituent Assembly from functioning as it was intended that it should. It is of the essence of the plan that the Assembly should be fully representative.

  7. His Majesty's Government desire to hand over their responsibility to authorities established by a Constitution approved by all Parties in India in accordance with the Cabinet Mission's plan, but unfortunately there is at present no clear prospect that such a Constitution and such authorities will emerge. The present state of uncertainty is fraught with danger and cannot be indefinitely prolonged. His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that it is their definite intention to take the necessary steps to effect the transference of power into responsible Indian hands by a date not later than June, 1948.

  8. This great sub-continent, now containing over 400,000,000 people, has for the last century enjoyed peace and security as a part of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Continued peace and security are more than ever necessary to-day if the full

  837
  possibilities of economic development are to be realized and a higher standard of life attained by the Indian people.

  9. His Majesty's Government are anxious to hand over their responsibilities to a Government which, resting on the sure foundation of the support of Me people, is capable of maintaining peace and administering India with justice and efficiency. It is therefore essential that all Parties should sink their differences in order that they may be ready to shoulder the great responsibilities which will come upon them next year.

  10. After months of hard work by the Cabinet Mission a great measure of agreement was obtained as to the method by which a Constitution should be worked out. This was embodied in their statements of May last. His Majesty's Government there agreed to recommend to Parliament a Constitution worked out, in accordance with the proposals made therein, by a fully representative Constituent Assembly. But if it should appear that such a Constitution will not have been worked out by a fully representative Assembly before the time mentioned in paragraph 7, His Majesty's Government will have to consider to whom the powers of the Central Government in British India should be handed over, on the same date, whether as a whole to some form of Central Government for British India or in some areas to the existing Provincial Governments, or in such other way as may seem most reasonable and in the best interests of the Indian people.

  11. Although the final transfer of authority may not take place until June, 1948, preparatory measures must 'be put in hand in advance. It is important that the efficiency of the Civil Administration should be maintained and that the defence of India should be fully provided for. But inevitably, as the process of transfer proceeds, it will become progressively more difficult to carry out to the letter all the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. Legislation will be introduced in due course to give effect to the final transfer of power.

  12. In regard to the Indian States, as was explicitly stated by the Cabinet
  838
  Mission, His Majesty's Government do not intend to hand over their powers and obligations under paramountcy to any Government of British India. It is not intended to bring paramountcy, as a system, to a conclusion earlier than the date of the final transfer of power, but it is contemplated that for the intervening period the relations of the Crown with individual States may be adjusted by agreement.

  13. His Majesty's Government will negotiate agreements in regard to matter arising out of the transfer of power with the representatives of those to whom they propose to transfer power.

  14. His Majesty's Government believe that British commercial and industrial interests in India can look forward to a fair field for their enterprise under the new conditions. The commercial connexion between India and the United Kingdom has been long and friendly, and will continue to be to their mutual advantage.

  15. His Majesty's' Government cannot conclude this statement without expressing on behalf of the people of this country their good will and good wishes towards the people of India as they go forward to this final stage in their achievement of self-government. It will be the wish of everyone in these islands that, notwithstanding constitutional changes, the association of the British and Indian peoples should not be brought to an end; and they will wish to continue to do all that is in their power to further the well -being of India.

  Your Lordships will wish to know of an announcement Which is being made public to-day. Field-Marshal the Right Honourable Viscount Wavell was appointed Viceroy in 1943 after having held high military command in South East Asia, the Middle East and India with notable distinction since the beginning of the war. I: was agreed that this should be a war-tine appointment. Lord Wavell has discharged this high office during this very difficult period with devotion and a high sense of duty. It has however seemed that the opening of this new and final phase in India is the appropriate time to terminate this war appointment.

  839
  His Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment, in succession to Lord Wavell, of Rear-Admiral the Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, who will be entrusted with the task of transferring to Indian hands the responsibility for the government of British India in the manner that will best ensure the future happiness and prosperity of India. He will remain on the active list, in accordance with his wish that his future employment in the Royal Navy shall not be prejudiced. I feel sure that your Lordships will wish Lord Mountbatten well in his great task. The change of office will take place during March. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that His Majesty has been pleased to approve the conferment of an Earldom on Viscount Wavell.
  4.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the statement to which we have just listened will, I am sure, have been heard by the whole House with a sense of profound shock. It appears to be a reversal of all previous statements of His Majesty's Government in this connexion. It provides no safeguards for minorities, and it amounts to the abandonment of India under conditions which, to many of us, can give no hope of a peaceful and prosperous future for her people. For many years successive Governments have tried to find a basis of agreement between the main communities, and up to now they have, unhappily, altogether failed. What reason is there to hope that success in this gigantic task, with all the constitutional changes that are involved, can be achieved in the few months that remain before our proposed departure? That is an aspect with which Parliament in this country must concern itself. Clearly, the House must have time to study this statement before any debate takes place, but I should like to make it clear now that those for whom I speak find themselves obliged to dissociate themselves entirely from a responsibility which, at first sight, seems open to such fundamental objections.
  4.14 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, let me, in the first instance, express what I am sure is in the mind's of all of your Lordships: our feeling of appreciation of the high sense of duty which led Viscount Wavell to undertake this difficult task.
  840
  It seemed at times as though he were on the very verge of success. He will carry with him the gratitude of the nation for his great services, not only in the military field but also in India. Rear-Admiral Viscount Mountbatten is setting his feet on a hard and difficult path and he will have with him, I am sure, the best wishes of this House, of the country, and, indeed, of the whole Commonwealth. As to the merits of the course which has been taken, I shall not follow the example of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but make no statement now. I think it better to reserve any comment until a later stage. I understand that in the very near future we are to have a full debate in this House, and then will be the opportunity which, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches, I shall take.
  It is, however, necessary to say that it is most lamentable that the course described by the noble Lord the Secretary of State should have been made necessary—as in the opinion of the Government is necessary—owing to the intransigence and antagonisms of the Indian leaders. In every other case in which a transfer of power has been made in the Dominions it has always been preceded by a general measure of agreement among the representatives of the people concerned as to who were to be recognized as the recipients of power. Here there has been no such agreement and, apparently, at this moment there is no prospect of any. Apparently it is not only more blessed but also, in this case, more easy to give than to receive. This incapacity of the Indian leaders to rise above intransigent partisanship may prove to be bringing their people into great peril and, possibly, into disaster. As recent events and the past history of India have shown, they are dealing with a highly inflammable population. When the British withdraw it will be their fault, and not ours, if no authority has been set up, adequately supported, to take charge; and if India passes through confusion and turmoil into civil war it will be useless for them to attempt to blame this country—that being, in fact, the only matter on which hitherto, they have been able to agree. History will place the blame fairly and squarely on the bankruptcy of their statesmanship.
  LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pethick—Lawrence, if the protection of minorities

  841
  is not now an essential condition of the settlement contemplated?
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I think it better that these questions should be discussed when we have the debate in this House. I do not think it is advisable for me to start answering questions now.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF BARNARD CASTLE 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 Barnard Castle, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF FELLING 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 Felling, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF RIPLEY (DERBYSHIRE) 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 Ripley (Derbyshire), and laid before the House on Tuesday FEBRUARY 1947 (Regulation)Bill 842 last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) BILL.
4.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, the Bill which now before the House is a comparatively short Bill, but in the opinion of the Government, it is a very important one. I should like your Lordships to consider it as part of the general policy of agriculture which was announced by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, on December 15, 1945. What this Bill mainly does is to make permanent the system of wage regulation in agriculture which is now being carried on under Defence Regulations which expire on December 31, 1947. In other words, it gives statutory authority for the transfer permanently to the Agricultural Wages Boards in England and in Scotland of the major powers which were conferred on county wages committees by the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act of 1924, in the case of England and Wales, and the corresponding Act of 1937 in the case of Scotland Henceforth, if this Bill is passed, the Agricultural Wages Boards will have the duty and power of fixing minimum wages for agricultural workers and of deciding various other matters which are set out in the Bill.
The regulation of wages is an exceedingly difficult matter. In the years before the last war the level of wages, on the whole, was extremely unsatisfactory from the point of view of the agricultural worker. Now, however, I think everyone is more or less agreed that labour must be attracted to agriculture; this is vital to our national life. One of the most important factors in securing labour for the land, of course, is a fair and decent wage for the agricultural worker. His Majesty's Government think that by far the most satisfactory way to achieve this is for the Central Wages Boards to be responsible for this task. This system has worked very well during the last few years and has removed a lot of anomalies and difficulties which arose before that time, such as different wages in different counties, even though the counties were adjacent to each other. In spite of the transference of

843
the major powers, many responsibilities and duties will still be left to the county wages committees, who in many cases will act more or less as agents or as liaison between the Wages Boards and the farmers and workers. I am very glad to say that the proposals contained in this Bill have been agreed in principle with the representatives of the National Farmers' Union and with the Unions representing agricultural workers in England and Scotland. This points to a growing confidence in the machinery of wage-fixing, and I hope that these principles will also have the support of your Lordships.
Now I turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 transfers wage-fixing powers to the Agricultural Wages Boards in England and Scotland. Under Clause 2 it is also proposed to transfer to the Boards the task—hitherto imposed on committees—of defining overtime and those benefits and advantages, such as the occupation of a cottage or the supply of milk, which may be taken into account as part payment of wages. As these matters are obviously a part of the wage system, it is entirely proper that the Boards, instead of the committees, should deal with them in future.
It is also proposed to repeal the English Act of 1940 and the corresponding provisions of the Scottish Act of the same year. The English Act enabled the Board to fix a national minimum wage to serve as a guide to the county committees. The Acts of 1924 and 1937, and the amending Acts of 1940, each sought to define in some degree the circumstances that wages committees and the Boards should take into account in reaching their decisions. As will be seen from Clause 1, subsection (2), it is proposed to repeal subsection (4) of Section 2 of the principal Act, which is now regarded as somewhat out of date in that it may be thought to suggest that agricultural wages ought to occupy a low place in the general list. There is one point here which I would like to mention. The repeal of the Acts of 1940 will remove the specific requirements upon the Wages Boards to consider "general economic conditions, and the conditions of the agricultural industry" and will leave them free to consider all relevant factors. That, I think, is the main point.
A third point is that at present, in certain respects, the powers of Agricultural Wages Boards and committees are more
844
restricted than those of the wages councils under the Wages Councils Act of 1945. For example, the power to make directions about holidays with pay is limited in two ways. The length of the holiday that can be given is limited to one week in the year, and provision cannot be made for more than three days to be taken consecutively. This also is to be changed, and it is now proposed to give the Boards the same freedom as the wages councils. It is also desirable that the Boards should have the greatest possible latitude to provide, if necessary, for special circumstances, such as absence from work due to various causes. The powers of the Boards are widened by this Bill to cover such matters as these by the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 1, and of the First Schedule.
There are various other points in this Bill, but I think they are mostly Committee points and will no doubt be raised on the Committee stage, so I shall pass on; but if there are any questions I will do my best to reply to them. Finally, I should like to say that His Majesty's Government have been extremely gratified by the general support which has so far been given to this Bill. I think that all sides thoroughly realize the necessity for the machinery of wage regulation in agriculture, and that this can best be carried out by central bodies having this duty. I hope, therefore, that this measure will prove to be non-controversial, and that your Lordships will give it a universal welcome in this House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
4.26 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Earl has laid the main provisions of this Bill before us very briefly and extremely clearly. I should like, also quite briefly, to express the general agreement of noble Lords on this side of the House with the main provisions of this Bill. It really carries on the existing machinery, or what has been the existing machinery since the Act of 1940, followed by the Defence Regulations of, I think, 1942. There are only one or two comments I would like to make, and one is on Clause 2, which deals with the question of benefits. I hope that the Board are really going to take seriously these powers under Clause 2. It is most important,

845
now that wages have reached the point they have, that the question of what is a fair price for the cottages and for other benefits should be laid down. It is very unfair on landlords. None of us who is letting a cottage at two or three shillings a week, and feels the rent should go up to five shillings, likes to 'be the only one to put it up. Wages are laid down centrally, and it is essential that the whole question should be dealt with centrally.
Another point I would like to mention is in connection with Clause 3: Provisions as to learners. As I read this clause, in future any of us who takes a pupil on our farm will have to get a certificate from the agricultural committee, first informing them of all the conditions of employment. I find myself saying: "Oh dear, just another certificate!" Is this really necessary? So far as I can see, all it will mean is that we shall not bother about pupils, or else that we shall not bother about certificates; and the noble Earl's Department will be in the market—as I gather are most other Government Departments—for a plentiful supply of "snoopers" to come round and catch us. Those are the only comments I make on this Bill, and I hope that it has a speedy passage.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I would just like to say, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches, that we also welcome this Bill, though there may be some points in which we shall be interested on the Committee stage.
4.29 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I could not let this opportunity pass without saying how much I welcome this Bill. I am of the opinion that it is far more important to pay agricultural workers a good living wage than it is to extend the privileges for pupils and for technical training. In this industry, as in many industries, we ought to get the idea into our heads that, so far as the average working man or the country is concerned, it is no disgrace to go home in dirty overalls with dirty hands. It seems to me that people in country districts, as well as in urban districts, all want their children to have education, but always with a view to avoiding industries such as coal, agriculture or builder's work, and to escape the real manual work that finally has to be done if we are to win
846
through. Every industry, including agriculture, is short of workers. The building trade is far more short of bricklayers' labourers than it is of bricklayers. I welcome this Bill if it is going to put a bottom into agricultural wages and guarantee workers a good standard rate of wage. With regard to Clause 4, there has been some slight controversy about the principle of payments by results.
LORD AMMON: You know about that.
LORD QUIBELL: I know a little about it. The Government are embodying the principle in this Bill. They are making it part and parcel of the Bill, and under Clause 4, it is the duty of the committees to fix payment by results. When there is a scarcity of agricultural labour in the countryside I think it is a good thing if encouragement can be given to a man to lay two hedges instead of one, and to have payment by results. So far as this Bill, and this clause in particular, is concerned, I heartily welcome it and hope that it will be a great success.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
4.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I invite your Lordships to give this little Bill a Second Reading. There are two aspects of the law with which I am now very much concerned. One is the cost of litigation and the other the law's delays. I hope soon to be able to make some observations to your Lordships with regard to the cost of litigation, but this Bill is primarily to help us to get rid of the delays in litigation in the ultimate court. At the present time there are seven Lords of Appeal of whose services we are entitled to make use. Of the distinguished people who have held high judicial office there are several of whose services (owing to reasons of health or age or some other cause) I am in practice able to avail myself to only a very small extent, with one notable exception. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how grateful we are to the noble

847
and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for the untiring way in which he has put his services at our disposal in helping to deal with the judicial business of this House and that of the Privy Council.
I am sorry to say that I myself have been rather truant. The long and short of the matter is that my engagements of another kind are so manifold that it is really impossible for me to give adequate time—although I should like very much to do so, because I think it is most important that the Lord Chancellor should—to the discharge of my judicial duties. In the result, save that I have on occasions had other help which I gratefully acknowledge—it has been only occasional—I have seven Lords of Appeal and the noble Viscount, who makes the eighth, to attend to the judicial business of this House and of the Privy Council. In the Privy Council the number of cases in which the Lords of Appeal are required to sit is increasing, and the number of cases in which five Judges are being asked to sit is also increasing. So far as Dominion appeals are concerned it has now become the understood practice that the Beard shall consist of not less than five Judges, each of whom is a member of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will, therefore, see that it is quite impossible for me, when I have to constitute a Board of that sort for the Privy Council, to arrange for sittings simultaneously in your Lordships' House. The result is that there has been some delay in hearing appeals, and although I certainly do not want to appoint an unnecessary number of Judges, yet I would much rather have too many Judges, although they might be sometimes idle, than that litigants should be subject to delays in having their cases heard.
The figures which I have show that in the last year—1946—the length of time between setting down the case and the hearing of the case in your Lordships' House was, on the average, eight and a half months, and the length of time between presentation and setting down was, on the average, three and three-quarter months. Of course, the time between presentation and setting down rests with the parties, and is no concern of ours. But it means that the average case cannot be heard until slightly over a year after
848
it is presented. That is worse than it has been before, except in one year, 1936, when the delay, for some reason, was eight and three-quarter months. It has never been so bad as that. I have the figures since 1927. At one time, in 1929–1930 it was down to under four months. I feel, therefore, that I have no option but to introduce this Bill and to ask your Lordships to pass it, so that I can appoint two additional Lords of Appeal, thereby making the number nine instead of seven. Those additional Lords of Appeal are to be appointed only if I certify, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that the state of business is such as to require the extra Judges. It is a very small Bill, and it proved completely non-controversial in another place. I am quite sure that your Lordships will so regard it, and will allow us to have it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words in support of this Bill. I speak from experience, first as Lord Chancellor and also, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has been kind enough to say, since then, when I have continuously been available to preside over one or other of these two tribunals when, unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor himself—for reasons which we all understand—much as he would have wished to preside, has been compelled to be absent. The work of the House in its judicial aspect is naturally not very closely watched by other members of the House, although it is a sitting of the House of Lords and any member of the House may come in—as noble Lords occasionally do—and attend the hearing of a case. It is, in fact, an arduous business. I think—and I believe the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will agree with me—that appeals to the House of Lords (that is to say, appeals from the Court of Appeal in England, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland or the Court of Session in Scotland) almost invariably require five members of the Court to be present. Obviously, it is much better to have an odd number in case of a difference of opinion, because, in the last resort, the decision is by majority.

849
There is, however, a curious and interesting rule, that if, by any chance, the number of legal members of the House hearing a case is four, and they divide two-two, a decision is reached by affirming the decision of the Court below. That is not a very satisfactory way of disposing of what may be a very important issue, so I take it that live of us must sit, as, in my experience, we do. It is very heavy work, not merely because we all have to keep attentive, not to say awake, and listen to what are often very complicated arguments, with references to books, but also because there is another part of the work which is not done in the presence of anybody at all, and that is the business of writing the opinions which we ultimately pronounce and Which will decide the law on the subject for the future, unless Parliament subsequently enacts otherwise. It is, therefore, a very heavy task. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for his most kind reference to me. I can only say that until I become too decrepit to discharge the task with reasonable competence I am very much at his disposal if he is good enough to call upon me.
In the Privy Council, as I think the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, indicated, the number of cases coming forward is very great. It very often happens that the Privy Council would like to sit in two divisions, dealing with two lists at the same time. Three alone certainly cannot sit on an appeal from Canada, but they can sometimes take certain appeals from the Colonies. Any one can see, if you put those considerations together, that the supreme judicial tribunals of this country are, in fact, grossly under-staffed. I am sure that this important move to improve that position will be welcomed, and I believe that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is discharging a most useful public service in securing the introduction of this Bill and its passage into law.
I would like to add one other thing, which is implicit in the noble and learned Viscount's remarks but which it would be useful for the public to bear in mind. Hamlet's reference to "the law's delay" does not in this country always mean that the Courts or the Judges are taking too long about it, because no Court can entertain on appeal any matter which it is
850
proposed to bring before it until the parties are ready to bring it. And very considerable intervals are possible before the case is prepared and before the Petition is served and the necessary discussions are completed, which will all go to decide when the case is ready to be heard. It is not the fault of the Judiciary that it so often happens that cases are not heard more promptly.
I have been hearing a case this morning which I think had an origin as far back as 1943. This state of affairs is very largely brought about because in the preliminary stages, before the cases reach the supreme tribunal, for one reason or another the parties are not in a position to push the matter rapidly forward. That ought not to be laid at the door of the Judiciary. I feel confident that when this bill is passed we shall increase the efficiency and the speed with which appeals to our supreme tribunals can be entertained and disposed of, and in achieving that result great satisfaction will be given not only to those who are trying to help in this work by sitting on these tribunals, but to the general public, who I am sure, do feel that the delay in these decisions often in practice amounts to a denial of the full rights to which one side or the other is entitled.
4.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I just contribute one word of welcome to this Bill from noble Lords on these Benches? Any measure designed effectively to reduce delay in the administration of justice must commend itself to your Lordships' House, and it is notable that, where you are dealing with what is, after all, the Supreme Court, the decisions of that body are awaited by many lower courts, often with considerable impatience; and since Supreme Court decisions regulate the decisions in those lower courts, the greatest possible expedition is obviously of great advantage to the whole administration of justice. The powers given under tins Bill to increase the numbers of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are not automatic. Those powers depend upon the discretion of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. The responsibility of seeing that these tribunals are adequately staffed is his, and I may surely be left to his discretion (for in the absence of such discretion it may be assumed that he would not be holding

851
the office of Lord Chancellor) that the powers given by this Bill will not be unnecessarily used. If used, as they will be, with proper discretion, they will advance the cause of justice in this country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL.
4.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, this is a short and quite uncontroversial measure, and its intention of removing what has been a source of real hardship to many unfortunate people in the past will, I am sure, appeal to noble Lords in all quarters of the House. Shortly put, it will enable the Registrar-General and the local registrars in England and Wales to issue a shortened birth certificate without any reference to parentage or adoption, at a reduced fee of sixpence. The present form of birth certificate, as your Lordships are aware, is a certified copy of an entry of birth, and gives many particulars, both about the child and its parents or adoptive parents. In a very large number of cases the production of a birth certificate is required merely as evidence of age. A school-teacher or an employer, for example, needs only to verify the date of birth of a child or a prospective employee. The use for such purposes of the long and detailed existing certificate imposes a quite unnecessary hardship on those who were born out of wedlock, or have been adopted, or who, for any other reason, do not wish to disclose the details of their parentage. This requirement has not only caused acute anxiety and embarrassment to the unfortunate people concerned, but has in some cases led to the refusal of employment or the loss of jobs. I has even resulted in the forging of certificates, I believe, in order to conceal particulars of parentage.
It is very much to the credit of Scotland that she has moved ahead of us in this respect, and has undertaken an experiment on a sufficiently large scale for it to be a test of success. The Scottish Registration Act of 1934 provided, among other things, for the issue of an abbreviated
852
birth certificate at a fee of sixpence. The experiment has proved so successful in Scotland that we have no hesitation in extending the same facility to England and Wales. The existing unabridged birth certificate will, of course, still be required for a variety of purposes, including evidence of relationship, and the Bill leaves it available to any applicant. At the same time, we want to ensure that the new certificate will not be used only by those who have something to conceal, because in that event the whole purpose of the Bill would be defeated. That is why, following the example of Scotland, we are arranging for the shorter certificate to be issued at sixpence as compared with the present charge for the full certificate of two shillings and sevenpence.
Let me add this, as being an encouraging sign of what has happened in Scotland, and as an indication that the Bill will safeguard the position of those who use the present certificate. What has happened in Scotland is that the majority of the short certificates that have already been issued relate to people born in wedlock. This means that the production or possession of one of these certificates does not give rise to the slightest comment or speculation. I very much hope, and I am sure this hope is shared by your Lordships, that in England and Wales, too, the abridged certificate will rapidly become the type of certificate asked for on all occasions when nothing more is required than evidence of age. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that it will be acceptable—this has already been agreed—to the Civil Service Commission, and to the Passport Office, and also for the purposes for which a birth certificate is required under the Shops and Factories Acts. I am confident that it will also be accepted by the local educational authorities, and by employers, who will undoubtedly wish to co-operate to the utmost of their ability in the effort to make this humane reform a success.
What I have said up to now covers the contents of Clause 1 of the Bill. It will be noticed that Clause 2 provides that the Bill is to come into force on January 1, 1948, unless an earlier date is fixed by Order in Council. We should have liked the Bill to come into operation immediately after its passage through both Houses of Parliament, but for administra

853
tive reasons that is not possible. If it should appear that the interval before the Bill conies into force can be shortened, I can assure your Lordships that the necessary steps will be taken.
This Bill will be particularly welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, and on behalf of the Government I should like to acknowledge the pioneer work which the noble Lord has done during many years as the principal Parliamentary protagonist of this reform. There is, after all, no more grievous injustice than the penalizing of children or adults because, at the time of their birth, their parents were unmarried. I commend this Bill to your Lordships because it attempts to put an end to this longstanding social injustice and to give a better chance of happiness to those whose sole fault is that they had less than average luck in their parentage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
4.52 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am quite certain that every member of your Lordships' House will welcome this short Bill, which brings a measure of justice to a large number of people who have suffered criticism, and who have felt it quite keenly, through an affair with which they themselves had no concern. The other day a friend of mine was asked the date of his birth, and he replied that he was not quite certain of it. The person who had asked him then said: "But everybody must know the date of his birth"; to which my friend answered:" I can assure you that I was there, but I can assure you, equally, that I do not remember anything about it." Taking it a step further back, a child who is unfortunately born illegitimate knows nothing whatever about its birth or about what happened before its birth. It is quite right that this disability—because it is a real disability, especially at a time when, for more and more purposes, these certificates are required—should be removed.
I was very glad to hear the noble Earl tell us of the authorities—such as, for instance, the Passport Office—which have already agreed to accept this abbreviated certificate, but I would like to ask him whether or not the Service Departments have also agreed to accept it. Perhaps
854
some inquiry could be made about that. In the Service Departments there are a number of matters in respect of which a birth certificate is required, but they were not among the Departments mentioned by the noble Earl. I think in a matter of this sort they might well give a lead, and I hope we shall be assured that they will.
It seems to me that this should be the common and normal form of certificate, and I hope it will be. If ever I am asked to produce a birth certificate I can assure the House that I shall have the shortened one at 6d, rather than the longer one at 2s. 7d. I hope that procedure will be adopted by everybody, even though they can afford to pay the extra 2s. 1d. without any inconvenience. In fact, the only place where a disability in this respect ought to exist is in applications to be admitted to this hereditary Chamber, where obviously the shortened certificate would not contain the full facts which it is quite properly required should be known before anybody can come here.
The only criticism I had intended to make of this Bill, before I heard the noble Earl, concerned Clause 2 and the date of its coming into operation. Up to January I, 1948, seems to me to be too long a time to require to get the necessary forms printed, because that is really all that is needed to be done. I would have liked to see an earlier date than that. Too often people in Government Departments say: "That is all right. The date is January of next year, and we have plenty of time in which to get the necessary machinery going to operate this new Bill". It is not as though new offices had to be set up; it it only a question of having the new and shortened forms printed. I hope the noble Earl will do his best to see that the interval is shortened.
I must confess that I do not like a lot of these Orders in Council—we have too many of them—but I should welcome one putting this Bill into operation before January 1 of next year. I believe it can be done. It ought not to need ten months to print these forms. The only amendment I should have liked to see made to the Bill would be the alteration of the date to, say, June 1 next. I believe we could get the forms printed by then. This Bill does not start with us; it comes from another place, and it would obviously be stupid for us to send it back with such an amendment as that. But I hope the noble Earl will do his utmost to see that this Bill, which, in

855
my view, might well have been brought in before—I am saying this about Governments of which I was a member, although this was not a particular concern of mine—will now come into operation at the earliest date possible. I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Broughshane who, not only in this House but in another place as well, has pursued this subject for a number of years. I am glad to be in the House this afternoon to see his ambition on at any rate one topic come to fruition.
4.58 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on having found time, in a not entirely vacant programme, for this Bill. It seems to me to be effective, within a very small compass of space, in lifting from the minds of a not inconsiderable number of people a quite undeserved dread which might otherwise have haunted them during the whole of their lives.
4.59 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I welcome this small and uncontroversial measure which is at long last on its way to the Statute Book. It was only on December 11 last that I ventured to raise this matter in your Lordships' House, and I have, therefore, no reason to complain of the Government's expedition in bringing this Bill forward. I then urged how desirable it was to have a certificate which would be the normal certificate, and that a person who produced the cheaper certificate should not be identified as a person who, for some reason or other, was unwilling to disclose the facts of his birth or any question of adoption. The only thing that occurs to me now is whether it would not be possible for a larger fee than 2s. 7d. to be charged for the full certificate, so that everyone who wanted a birth certificate would naturally take the cheaper form. Like the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I too trust that it may be found possible to bring this measure into operation at an earlier date than January 1, 1948. I cannot see why there should be so long a delay in getting any necessary forms printed.
This matter first came before me some years ago in connexion with a trust which I administered for the giving of exhibitions
856
to girls to fit them for the medical profession. A very excellent girl won a scholarship, and she came up before me. I congratulated her upon her papers and the good work she had done, and as she was going away I said to her: "By the way, you might just let me have your birth certificate so as to confirm the age as stated on your form." She became scarlet in the face and it quite nonplussed me, as I could not understand what I had said to upset her. I said: "It is quite a small fee," and she said, "Oh, yes, I will send it on." When I got the certificate I found that this girl was illegitimate and was unwilling to disclose the fact. I did not want to know that and I only wanted a certificate to show that she was under eighteen, which she claimed to be when she won the scholarship.
I have always thought it is one of the most extraordinary things in life that the word "bastard" is considered the most opprobrious word in the English language. You may call a person almost any name under the sun, and he may not resent it, but if a person is called a bastard it is considered a most awful thing. Unless violence is immediately done to the person who so describes you, you are considered to be a coward and a person who is not fit for human society. Yet it is the one case in the world where there can be no blame whatever attaching to the person who is slandered. It is really a very extraordinary state of affairs, and I have never been able to understand it. However, this being so, it is a terrible hardship for so many people, not only in the world of exhibitions but in connexion with many other walks of life where a birth certificate is required, to have to disclose the fact that they are illegitimate or adopted.
As I said before, I hope it may be possible to charge rather a larger fee for the full certificate. When I raised the matter in your Lordships' House on December 11 I suggested that in order that people should not be identified in any way it might be desirable that the old full certificate should be issued only in exceptional cases, with the consent of the court or other statutory body. As the Minister has indicated, I think it has been shown in Scotland that this is not really necessary and, especially if the authorities raise the price for the full certificate, the shortened form will be considered the

857
normal certificate. I feel very much obliged to His Majesty's Government for having dealt with this matter so promptly, and I thank the noble Lords who have been good enough to refer to what I have done to secure this result. As in the case that I indicated, and others which have been brought to my attention, I know that anyone, whether a member of your Lordships' House or the public generally, would be horrified to think that so much pain and anxiety should be occasioned to so large a class of the community to whom no blame whatever attaches. I thank the Government again for having introduced this Bill so promptly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
5.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, this is a short Bill to enable county councils in England and Wales to increase their subscriptions to the County Councils Association which, as your Lordships know, is a body which aids the councils in many ways and saves them a great deal of time, trouble and expense in connexion with important sections of their work. A similar measure regarding county councils in Scotland and their Association was passed in November last. In both cases the terms were agreed between the councils and their respective Associations.
The present rate obtaining in England and Wales is a maximum of £157 IOS as per annum. That was fixed some years ago, and it is now found to be inadequate by reason of the greatly increased volume of work which has to be dealt with, largely arising from recent legislation. For example, the Education Act, 1944, the recent Police Act, the Fire Brigades Act and the Town and Country Planning Acts all involve a great deal of additional work for the staff of county councils and their Association. It is therefore more necessary than ever that the Association should be able to carry on its valuable work unimpaired by lack of financial assistance, especially as it is helpful to four or five Government Departments who utilize its services, as well as to the 61 county councils.
858
This Bill seeks to raise the maximum subscription to £262 10s. 0d. per annum. That figure will apply only to the largest councils, those that have populations of over I,000,000. The contribution will be scaled down according to the size of the council's population to about one-third of the maximum rate in cases where a council has a population of less than I00,000. The Bill provides that any subsequent change in the rates of subscription which may be found to be necessary can be made by Order in Council, and this will obviate further legislation. I beg to move.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Walkden.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I rise to say that we on these Benches have no objection whatever to the measure of which the noble Lord has just moved the Second Reading. I was wondering, when I originally read it, whether somebody had gone into an abstruse calculation as to what really was the alteration in the cost of living since 1937. Perhaps this is not a bad shot at it—that what £157 0d. would have bought then now takes 262, nos. 0d. As a matter of fact, I should not think that that is very far out. I was rather wondering why, in a Bill of this sort, we were so meticulous as to the Ios., and why we did not make it a good round sum such as £265 or something like that. I believe it is a maximum charge, but I suppose that somebody, for some reason, has gone rather meticulously into these figures. We know that these bodies do good work, and they ought to have the wherewithal to carry out such work, as the noble Lord said, without always having to see whether they were financially able to undertake what they ought to undertake.
For myself—and here again I am in an unusual capacity—I rather look forward to the provision by Order in Council. I think it is a good thing that a figure like this, in a Bill of this sort, should be capable, if the value of money changes or the duties which these organizations have to perform change, of being altered without going through the procedure of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, Third Reading, and so on, before both Houses of Parliament. So here again, rather oddly—exceptionally I may

859
say—I welcome subsection (2) of Clause 1. I only wish that all our Regulations could be restricted to matters of this kind, which are quite properly dealt with from time to time by such Regulations. As it is, we from these Benches support this measure, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for explaining it to us so clearly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before the House adjourns, may I ask the noble Lord oppo
860
site whether he could announce now the business for next week?
LORD AMMON: I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House that we shall meet at four o'clock on Monday in order to continue the Committee stage of the Companies Bill. On Tuesday it is proposed to take the debate on India. I think perhaps we can leave it at that.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is the announcement I wanted to appear in the Official Report.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.