Lords Sitting of 16 November 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  BIRTH OF THE PRINCE: ADDRESS OF CONGRATULATION
  2.35 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL)THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL) rose to move That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to congratulate His Majesty, Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a son to Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in the regrettable absence, owing to a very heavy cold, of my noble friend Lord Addison, who leads this House with a grace and distinction which I cannot hope to emulate, there has fallen to me the high honour and privilege of moving the Motion for an humble Address to His Majesty. Conveying to the King and Queen, and to Princess Elizabeth and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, our congratulations upon the birth of a son, it is unfortunate, too, that on this important occasion the Speaker of your Lordships' House, the Lord Chancellor, has been called away to Paris for important consultations. He has asked me to make particular apologies to your Lordships for his unavoidable absence from the Woolsack this afternoon, which obliges him to forgo the honour of putting this Address of Congratulation and of announcing, as is invariably the case with Addresses of this nature in your Lordships' House, that it has been carried without a note of dissent.
  In this country, which has known Kingship accompanied by democratic institutions for so many centuries, a country "where freedom has slowly broadened down from precedent to precedent," the Monarchy has found itself, during the past hundred years of its history, more securely based than ever before upon the affections of the people.
  396
  And for this happy relationship we owe everything to a succession of Sovereigns who have held their great office so well, and so faithfully, that they have made Kingship symbolic of—nay, synonymous with—service. To-day we are all rejoicing in the joy of our Royal Family. With our King and Queen, and their gracious Mother, Queen Mary, we are happy that Princess Elizabeth, as Heiress-Presumptive, has presented her husband, the Nation and the Commonwealth with a Prince as the first issue of what we all know is a very happy marriage. Thus the succession is secured, and we may look forward to a continuance of that Royal tradition, which has so endeared the Monarchy to the hearts of our people, and to the other partners with us in the Commonwealth and Empire.
  My Lords, we rejoice with the young Princess and her husband in their happiness; for we are one great family with The King as head, and, just as our domestic joys are shared by the Sovereign and his House, so to-day, as always, we rejoice with him and with those gathered round his domestic hearth, and share the fullness of their happiness. And for the baby Prince, whom we welcome to our hearts, we wish health, strength, wisdom and length of years and happiness in the service and the affection of the Nation. He has come amongst us as a Sunday's child, and we remember the good omen of the age-old saying:
  "The child that is horn on the Sabbath day
  Is fair and wise, and good and gay."
  My Lords, the occasion needs no further words from me. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to congratulate His Majesty, Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh on the birth of a son to Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.—(Viscount Hall.)
  2.41 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to second the humble Address of Congratulation to Their Majesties The King and Queen, which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. I do so with a full heart. The event which we celebrate to-day is one which is not only joyful in itself; it is fraught with happy auguries for the

  397
  future. Here, in this ancient country, whatever else may change, the Monarchy, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has already said, remains our proudest and most precious possession. We sometimes speak of it as the pinnacle of our national Constitution, or as the keystone of the British Commonwealth and Empire. But it is much more even than that. Our attachment to the Monarchy represents a deep personal feeling enshrined in all our hearts. It is the very essence of our national being. We love and revere our King and Queen, not only for themselves, but for all that they represent.
  The silent, expectant throng that stood before Buckingham Palace, hour after hour in the cold and damp of a November evening, waiting for the news which we celebrate to-day, the great crowds that gather at the Palace on any momentous occasion, happy or sad, go there instinctively, because they want to share their deepest feeling with their King, who is at once their Ruler and the most faithful and enduring counsellor and friend. Governments may come and go; but he remains. This close relationship between the Crown and the people has grown and matured over many centuries. It has been immeasurably strengthened in recent years by the example of King George V and Queen Mary, and yet more firmly established by the selfless devotion of Their present Majesties, to whom this country and the Empire owe a debt that can never be repaid.
  This noble tradition of service by the Crown, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, so rightly spoke, they have handed down in full measure to their daughter, Princess Elizabeth, who has already, in deeply moving words, dedicated her life to our country. Now, a new generation is with us, a young Prince, who will grow up with the same spirit of service to his people. This is an event of transcendent importance. We in this House send our loyal congratulations to his father and mother, and to Their Majesties the King and Queen, who now, for the first time, join the honourable company of grandparents. We share in their joy. May all blessings attend this child; may health and happiness be his; and may he grow up in the fullness of time to be the pride and glory of this country.
  2.45 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we on these Benches desire to associate ourselves with the Motion for an humble Address, which the House will be glad to send to His Majesty on this occasion. Our minds may go back to the wedding ceremony in Westminster Abbey a year ago. The occasion was stately—the marriage of the Heiress to the Throne—but the service was the usual simple and beautiful ritual of the Church of England, such as would be used at any marriage in any village church. I remember being struck, and not a little moved, by the words of the introductory rubric:
  "The persons to be married shall come into the body of the Church with their friends and neighbours."
  In that historic building, with its atmosphere of a thousand years of history, amid the vast congregation of the leaders of a great Nation and the representatives of a yet greater Commonwealth, stood Philip and Elizabeth, as man and woman, with their "friends and neighbours". Indeed, for the King and his family, all his people, though separated in space, are spiritually their neighbours; and we are fortunate in this: that all are their friends. This little Prince, two days old, knows nothing of who he is, nothing of the greatness to which he has been born, or of its responsibilities. Let us ask a blessing on his life. The Houses of Parliament, speaking, too, for all those friends and neighbours, will pray that it may be blessed with happiness for himself and usefulness for his country.
  2.48 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I feel it a great privilege to be allowed to add my few and simple words to those adequate tributes which have already been paid by noble Lords in supporting the Motion for the humble Address. I speak on behalf of the Lords Spiritual generally, but more particularly on behalf of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who, to his infinite regret, has been prevented from appearing here this afternoon by the preparations that are now going forward for his tour in Germany. This occasion is one of both national and personal rejoicing. It is an occasion of national rejoicing because the Nation, a great and proud Nation, rejoices in the security of the succession to the Throne. But also, I

  399
  venture to think, it is an occasion of intense personal rejoicing. The fact is that in this country, and indeed in the whole Commonwealth, we owe an infinite debt to Their Majesties, which we feel deep in our hearts but which we can never adequately repay. We can endeavour to repay it, to some extent, by sympathising with them in the fullest sense—that is, by feeling with them in all the changes and chances of this mortal life. As we have from time to time expressed our sympathy in their sorrows, so to-day we express our infinite joy in their great rejoicing. Those of us who have the proud privilege of being grandparents will rejoice that to Their Majesties has been given at this time the deepest, the simplest and, perhaps I might add, the most exquisite joy that is known to human beings in the short span of their earthly life.
  I would like to say one thing that has not been mentioned in the speeches of noble Lords. I desire to express in this House the great rejoicing of our kinsfolk overseas. As one who had the privilege of working for nine years in Australia, I can tell the House how great will be the rejoicing overseas and, indeed, how great has already been the rejoicing in that Dominion. Owing to the chance of geographical situation, they were able to forestall us in the public expression of their joy, and the bells were ringing from the steeples of Sydney while we were sleeping in our beds. That is the kind of anticipation in which they always rejoice, and I cannot help feeling that it is the greatest augury of the happiness of Their Majesties' intended visit to Australia. It is a sign of the tremendous loyalty and joy that the people feel.
  I would like to add to the graceful couplet which the noble Viscount gave us in his speech in moving the humble Address. In our English way we put it simply that,
  "Sunday's child is full of grace,"
  and we hope and pray that the child so newly born will fulfil the portent of the day of his birth. To our own rejoicing we shall add our unceasing prayers that during the lifetime of this child renewed material prosperity will come to our Nation, and that there will be continued that moral and spiritual leadership
  400
  which we are still, beneath the hand of God and under the guidance of Their Majesties, able to give to a torn and distracted world.
  2.52 p.m.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, Free Churchmen, in humble duty, would, I know, wish most heartily to support the Motion for this humble Address and to be associated with all that has been so well said on this happy occasion. I cannot hope to emulate the eloquence of previous speakers, but on behalf of Free Churchmen, not only in this country but throughout the world, I desire to express in no measured terms our sincere congratulations to Their Majesties the King and Queen upon the birth of this Royal Prince. As we listened to the B.B.C. news summary at eleven o'clock on Sunday night, we were full of thanksgiving for such a gift of God to this Nation and to the Commonwealth. I would add only the assurance of our prayers for the life spared and for the life given.
  On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, it is proposed that, as on the last two occasions when your Lordships passed Addresses of Congratulation to the King on Their Majesties' Silver Wedding and on Princess Elizabeth's engagement, the Address we have just passed should be presented to His Majesty by Privy Counsellors.

  COAST PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
  2.54 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the protection of the coast of Great Britain against erosion and encroachment by the sea; to provide for the restriction and removal of works detrimental to navigation; to transfer the management of Crown foreshore from the Minister of Transport to the Commissioners of Crown Lands: and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shepherd).
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  CHRISTMAS ALLOCATIONS OF IMPORTED POULTRY
  2.55 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have altered the policy under which allocations of imported poultry for the Christmas trade are based on a trader's importations during the basic year 1938, and, if so, on what basis such allocations will in future be made.]
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the general policy has not been altered. An exception to the existing distribution arrangements will, however, be made in the case of the retail co-operative societies, who are to be granted an increased allocation of imported poultry in order that their customers may receive a more appropriate share of total supplies than at present. The Co-operative Wholesale Society, as members of the Association of Wholesale Distributors of Imported Poultry and Rabbits, at present receive about 1½ per cent. of the total imported supplies of turkeys, other poultry and rabbits, and retail co-operative societies receive, in addition, a small quantity from other members of the Association for which no precise figures are available, but which is estimated not to exceed 3 per cent. of the total supplies.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if special allocations are to be made, would the noble Viscount point out to the Minister of Food that there are a number of other traders who would come into the category which could properly claim them? And would he, moreover, undertake that their cases will be looked into? Would the noble Viscount also point out to the Minister of Food—I think this is the better way of putting it, rather than asking him the direct question—that to base the increase in imported poultry on, say, meat registrations, is not an accurate method, because many trader, co-operative societies amongst them, obtained a large percentage of their pre-war turkey supplies from this country, and the imported poultries were divided up among them only in proportion to their reliance on imported poultry?
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend has undertaken to consider similar claims for increased supplies from any other well-defined body of traders, but not from individual traders. I know he put it in that form for the reason that traders are organised Sand are represented in the organisation to which I have referred.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether the Association of Wholesale Distributors of Imported Poultry and Rabbits, which has long been recognised by the Ministry of Food as the body to advise that Ministry in regard to the allocations of imported supplies of poultry and rabbits, were consulted, before the Minister of Food granted a special preferential 10 per cent. allocation of imported poultry and rabbits for Christmas to the co-operative societies.]
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, this decision was not discussed beforehand with the Association of Wholesale Distributors of Imported Poultry and Rabbits, which is an association of importers who, prior to September 3, 1939, habitually dealt in imported rabbits and/or poultry by wholesale. The Association is controlled by a Council on which the Ministry of Food have a majority vote, and its main function is to distribute imported rabbits and poultry in accordance with the Ministry's instructions. The Association was, however, immediately informed of the Ministry's decision in this matter so that the members could consider its implications before being asked to make the consequential changes in their distribution arrangements. The Association has made certain alternative suggestions for distributing this increased allocation which are now being considered by my right honourable friend.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, is it not a fact that there was a two-way working in this matter? Naturally, the Minister must have the final responsibility, but is it not a fact that, until this recent decision, he was in all cases advised in the first instance by this body—on which, in fact, the co-operative societies are also represented?
  VISCOUNT HALL: I think it is true that he was so advised. It was mainly a question of distribution rather than of allocation. It is true that the Co-operative Wholesale Society were represented. The retail societies, which are distinct from the Wholesale Society, were not represented.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: But they work pretty well hand in glove.
  VISCOUNT HALL: As a matter of fact, the position is rather surprising. The allocation to the Wholesale Society was only about 1½ per cent. of the total, whereas the distribution to the retail societies was about 3 per cent. I am sure the noble Lord, when he realises that 8,500,000 co-operative members in this country look to these organisations for distribution of commodities of this kind, cannot feel that the 1½ per cent. and the 3 per cent.—making a total of 4½ per cent. out of the 100 per cent. of imports of rabbits and poultry into this country—were adequate.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Surely some firms—firms of all sorts—relied before the war to a certain extent on imported poultry, while other firms relied much more on poultry raised in England, Scotland and Wales. Is it not wrong, therefore, to take general allocations when dealing with the particular problem of how much somebody ought to have out of the total supplies obtainable?
  EARL HOWE: Does the noble Viscount mean to indicate by the answers he has just given that it is the policy of the Minister to give the individual trader a square deal as compared with the cooperative societies?
  VISCOUNT HALL: I have already pointed out that my right honourable friend is quite prepared to receive any representations from any organised body which feels that its members have a grievance in this matter.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (ABOLITION) BILL. [H.L.]
  3.4 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Functions of Commission under the Telegraph Acts.
  2.—(1) For Section four of the Telegraph Act, 1878 (which provides for the determination of differences relating to telegraphs on streets and public roads by a stipendiary magistrate or county court judge in England or Wales or Northern Ireland, or by the sheriff in Scotland, subject to a right of appeal to the Commission) there shall be substituted the following section:—
  "Differences generally to be determined by a county court or the sheriff, subject to appeal to High Court or Court of Session.
  4. Where—
  (a) any difference arises under this Act or the Telegraph Act, 1863, between the Postmaster-General and any body or person having any power, jurisdiction or control over or relating to a street or public road, or having power under the last mentioned Act to give or withhold a consent to the placing of telegraphs and posts in, under, upon, along, over or across a street or public road; or
  the difference shall be determined by a county court:
  (3) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, for the first reference to a county court there shall be substituted a reference to the county court having jurisdiction within the district in which the difference has arisen; for the reference to the Lord Chief Justice there shall be substituted a reference to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland; and as respects any appeals to the High Court, provision may be made by rules of the Supreme Court under Section sixty-one of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877, as amended by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (No. 2) Act, 1897, for regulating the time within which appeals to the High Court may be made and the procedure and costs of such appeals."
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (3) of the proposed new Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1878, to omit the words: "within the district in which the difference has arisen." The noble Lord said: Those of your Lordships who have a copy of the Bill in your hands will see that in the case of Northern Ireland the county court has to be the one "having jurisdiction within the district in which the difference has arisen." In the case of England and Wales, there are no such

  405
  words in the Bill. As I mentioned on Second Reading, I felt, as we all feel, that it is right for this House to see that Bills go out from it to another place in as perfect a condition as possible; and with that in view it occurred to me that if those words were not in the Bill in the case of England and Wales, someone might well ask why they appear in the case of Northern Ireland. There may be an adequate reason for it; but I think we are entitled to ask why the draftsmen have drafted the Bill in this particular form, distinguishing between the different parts of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("jurisdiction") to ("for") in line 44.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the reason which I am going to give him why there should be this difference in the words as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is a satisfactory one. These words have been inserted in the Bill at the express request of the Northern Ireland authorities. The reason for them is this. The jurisdiction of the county courts in Ireland is still a territorial one; that is to say, it is exclusive to the county in which the county court sits. That used to be the jurisdiction in this country, but the situation was changed by the County Courts Act, 1934. The rule-making authority now has power to make rules, and, as I understand it, has in fact made rules, by which the jurisdiction of the county court is dealt with by the rule-making authority; so that the situation now is quite different. If these words were not in the clause there would be difficulty in Northern Ireland; and if these words were put into the clause dealing with England and Wales, it would mean that the rule-making authority would not, in fact, be able to exercise its power so to organise the jurisdiction of the county courts as to get the elasticity which is the object of the Act of 1934. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that there is this difference between county court jurisdictions in this country and in Northern Ireland, and will agree that in these circumstances these words are necessary in the place in which they appear.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. I must
  406
  confess that I was ignorant that there was not this power in Northern Ireland, as there is in Great Britain, and that therefore there is a distinction between the bases of jurisdiction of the two courts. The noble Lord's explanation seems to me an adequate one and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Repeal of s. 1 of Metropolis Water Act. 1897]:
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to omit Clause 5. The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will see, Clause 5 repeals Section 1 of the Metropolis Water Act of 1897, as amended by the Metropolis Water Act, 1902. The Metropolis Water Act of 1897 says:
  "Any water consumer or any local authority may complain to the Railway and Canal Commission that any of the Metropolitan Water Companies has failed to perform, some statutory duty of the Company, and the Commission may hear and determine that complaint, and if satisfied of such failure, order the Company within the time limited by the Order, to fulfil the duty, and may, if they think fit, by any such Order, impose any penalty for such failure which can be imposed under any Act. …"
  In this Bill, although every other part of the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission (which this Bill will abolish) has been transferred to the High Court, this particular part, so far as I can understand, will be abolished altogether if we pass Clause 5.
  As I said on Second Reading, it may well be that these provisions have fallen completely into disuse, and that there is no real reason for keeping them and transferring them to the High Court—perhaps, for instance, other methods have been adopted than that of going to the Railway and Canal Commission where any grievance exists. It is because the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, replying to the debate in his charming manner the other day, largely confined himself to references (which we all appreciated very much) to the noble Lords, Lord Ashfield and Lord Maenan, and did not really discuss the Bill, that I put down this Amendment. I hope that now I may have an explanation of why it is sought to repeal this old provision, which gave

  407
  members of the community a right to go to some tribunal to complain that they had a grievance. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I am very glad to be able to give the noble Lord the explanation for which he is asking. I hope that he will be satisfied with it. When he said that he suspected that this clause had perhaps fallen into disuse, his unerring instinct was right. The clause has, in fact, fallen into disuse. It was last used in 1901, which was probably the only occasion upon which it was ever used. That is not the whole reason, however. It may well be that no citizen has availed himself of a statutory right for a very long period but it might nevertheless be necessary to retain it for him. The reason why we are inserting this clause to do away with this right is that it has really become obsolete. In the Water Act of 1945 there is a general provision under which an aggrieved customer, not only in the Metropolis but anywhere throughout the Kingdom, can apply to the Minister of Health and state his grievance to him, and the Minister of Health can then order an inquiry into the problem. Therefore it seems unnecessary to have this particular right preserved simply within the Metropolis. There is this much more general method of remedying the grievance which can be used all over the country.
  I should, of course—and your Lordships would expect me to—be quite frank and point out that in fact the right under the Water Act of 1945 is a discretionary right in the Minister, whereas this is a statutory right under the Metropolis Water Act, 1902. There is this to be said, in addition: that there is always a right in a citizen who feels a grievance that some statutory duty has been inadequately carried through by an authority, to bring proceedings in the High Court. That right is not in any way interfered with under this Bill. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may say so, I think that that explanation is perfectly satisfactory. It was an extremely good Government that brought in the Water Bill.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Which one was it?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that all members of the Government were concerned. The Bill was introduced in another place by Mr. Willink, who was then Minister of Health. We all joined, without any divergence of opinion, to get that excellent Bill on the Statute Book. Let us not too soon get up and say that it is inadequate for this purpose. That Bill does give this right, and of course, as the noble Lord has said, the citizen also has a right to go to the High Court in exceptional cases if he feels very much aggrieved because some authority is not performing the functions that it should. If we leave this clause in the Bill, the only right that he would have against the Metropolitan Water Board would be to go to the High Court. In view of the noble Lord's explanation, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.

  COLONIAL STOCK BILL
  3.17 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Colonial Stock Bill. Neither this Bill nor the one which will succeed it aroused any controversy in another place. Therefore, unless your Lordships press me, I propose to deal with both Bills rather briefly. The Colonial Stock Bill provides for two unrelated amendments of the Colonial Stock Acts. I take the first amendment first. Under the Government and Other Stocks (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939, transfer of stock by inscription in the books of stock registrars was suspended, and provision was made for all transfers of stock to be made by instrument in writing. Clause 1 of this Bill is put forward in pursuance of the Treasury and Bank of England policy that there should be no return to the system of transfer by inscription, because of its inconvenient and cumbersome

  409
  nature. The clause provides for the making of regulations under the Colonial Stock Acts for the abolition of inscription in respect of stock to which those Acts apply—that is, Dominion and Colonial stocks—provided that authority for making the regulations has been given by legislation in the Dominions and Colonies concerned.
  I come now to the second purpose of the Bill. The object of Clause 2 is to enable the East Africa High Commission and any other similar inter-Colonial body which may be established in the future to administer services for more than one territory, to issue stock under the Colonial Stock Acts so that such stock may rank as a trustee security. It is a matter of some urgency and importance that satisfactory arrangements should be made for the High Commission to borrow in the London market. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the general character of the Bill. Of course, I shall be pleased to reply to any questions that may be raised. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  3.20 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I have studied this Bill rather carefully. We are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for his explanation of it. When Imperial or Colonial issues have been discussed in recent times in this Chamber, the two sides of the House have not always seen eye to eye. However, I do not think that anything divides us upon this Bill. I have searched it carefully to see whether I could find any signs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving effect to his recently expressed views on the subject of liquidation, but I am satisfied that this is a short and simple Bill to carry out a simple object.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES BILL
  3.21 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am hopeful that the House will be equally kind to this Bill. The purpose, which is
  410
  explained more concisely in the explanatory memorandum than in any alternative words which suggest themselves to me, is to provide that, on the expiry of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, the obligation to pay any debt to any of the Clearing Offices is extinguished; the debt will become owed to the foreign creditor. I should point out that the Act in question is due to expire on March 31 next year and, but for this Bill, the Clearing Offices would have had to continue until all the debts were paid, although the clearing arrangements which were created to operate them would have come to an end. That situation would have been absurd. Under the Bill, Clearing Offices Will cease to exist and provision is made for the Treasury to do anything necessary to wind up anything which is outstanding and which would previously have been done by the Clearing Offices. I think the House will agree that these Offices should no longer remain in being, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  3.21 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, as I see it, this is a rather technical Bill with really a very simple object, which the noble Lord has explained. I am always relieved to see an explanatory memorandum on the cover of a Bill like this. The sum of money involved is not large, but I would like the noble Lord's reassurance that the Bill was produced after consultation with the relevant trade bodies, such as the Federation of British Industries and others. If he could say a word on that matter I should be grateful. I have no objection at all to the provisions. I think the House will have remarked, if they have read the Bill, that it is rather a rare bird, although a welcome one; it actually cuts down the number of civil servants and the accommodation they occupy. For this relief, much thanks!! If we, on this side of the House, thought that this was a step which would be followed by longer and longer strides in the same direction, I should find myself to-day in a position not merely to mouth approval but to applaud it lustily, too.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his friendly words in relation to this Bill. I am afraid

  411
  I am not in a position to give him the assurance for which he asks. I have no reason to suppose that it would not be available but, not having had notice of his question, I am not in a position to say anything, one way or the other, on that subject. However, perhaps I may communicate with the noble Lord before the next stage of the Bill, and, if he feels that there has been some omission, he can raise it at that stage. I am glad that he feels that this is a move in the right direction, in that it reduces the number of civil servants. I did not think it necessary to comment on that; our desire to bring down the number of civil servants is so well known that I felt the House would hardly require any reassurance on that point. However, I am glad that the noble Lord accepts it in this spirit, and, once again, I am grateful to him and to the House for the way in which they have received this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MEETING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, it will be to the general convenience of your Lordships if I take this opportunity of informing the House that it has been necessary to change the time of the meeting at which the Secretary of State for War is to address your Lordships in the Moses Room this afternoon. Instead of 3.40 p.m. or 3.45 p.m., as originally arranged, the meeting will take place at 4.15 p.m. The Secretary of State apologises for the unavoidable change, and hopes that the new hour will prove convenient.