Lords Sitting of 5 April 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) ORDER, 1949.
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, March 16 last be approved. Under Section 7 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, this Order, which was foreshadowed during the debate in your Lordships' House on the Motion raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, a few weeks ago, requires the approval of your Lordships. It is proposed, first to make minor boundary alterations to the South Wales development area by adding to it a few parishes which have hitherto been just outside the existing boundaries but which form part of the same natural economic and social unit; and the Order brings within the development area the Carmarthenshire side of the industrial Amman Valley. The effect will be to extend the development area by some 30,000 acres and to increase its population by several thousands. This minor boundary adjustment has been made after consultation with all the local authorities whose area includes any land to which the Order relates. It has been welcomed by them all, so I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships further with it.
  Secondly, the Order proposes to add the Merseyside area to the schedule of development areas. The Government have long been watching very carefully the special circumstances of the Merseyside area, and its unemployment record, and have recognised that its employment needs are likely to be best served by development area facilities. It is true that the Government have been able to do quite a lot to help the area without scheduling; but post-war unemployment in the area has risen sharply, and since 1946 has persisted at a level comparable with that of the other development areas and some two
  952
  and a half times as great as the average for Great Britain as a whole. I would point out to your Lordships that the industrial economy of Merseyside has a special character, differing from that of the other development areas, in that primarily Merseyside is a commercial rather than an industrial area.
  I do not wish to worry your Lordships with a mass of figures, but three, I think, will illustrate the consistent heavy unemployment suffered by the Merseyside area before the war. In 1932, some 109,000 were out of work. The average unemployment in the years 1932 to 1938 was approximately 97,000. As a result of the depressed conditions in the area, almost 90,000 people migrated between 1931 and 1939, and although this reduction in the population was approximately balanced by the natural increase, it shows a very sad state of affairs. During the war, through the activity of the port and the munitions factories built in the area during that period, unemployment fell to a very low level; in fact, in June, 1945, the total unemployment was down to 3,400. The war-time development at Speke, Fazakerley and Kirkby provided the nucleus of industrial development of which the local authority have been able to take considerable advantage. Both the Government's policy of steering industrialists to areas of special need and the post-war factory building programme have contributed to the area's industrial development.
  By the middle of 1948 the total numbers in employment were 433,000, and some 60,000 more men and women were employed than in 1939. To-day there are more people employed on Merseyside than at any time since records have been kept. In spite of this, the hard core of Merseyside's unemployment problem remains. Employment in the war factories converted to peace-time production has inevitably fallen below the war-time peak. The effect of new development is offset to some extent by the serious war damage which the area suffered. By June, 1946, the unemployment figures had reached 28,700, and to-day they are approximately the same. This is represented by unemployment, particularly heavy as regards men, at 7½ per cent. of the insured men workers compared with the average of 4 per cent. for the other development areas and 2½ per cent. for Great Britain as a whole. A special

  953
  feature of the position on Merseyside is that female unemployment, particularly on the north side of the river, does not present a serious problem. Merseyside is a large, compact community, offering a wide range of jobs for women, although this substantial surplus of male unemployment still remains to be catered for. The estimated employment arising from the post-war factory building programme would still leave some two-thirds of the unemployed men out of work.
  My Lords, that is the picture of Merseyside as it is to-day. It is proposed that this new Merseyside development area shall include the industrial centres of Liverpool, Bootle, Litherland and Birkenhead, Huyton-with-Roby and the parishes of Netherton, Aintree, Kirkby and Simonswood, which contain existing training estates and land scheduled for industrial development, and Wallasey and Bebington, where there are also projected industrial estates. The Merseyside development area will comprise approximately 112 square miles, and has a present population of some 1,197,000. All local authorities affected by the Order, including the Lancashire County Council, have been consulted, and all now concur that the area should be scheduled as a welcome aid to the solution of Merseyside's economic and unemployment problems. Within the scheduled area the development plans of the local planning authorities show an adequate amount of land available for industrial development, and the Board of Trade have under consideration questions of the proper siting of new industrial building and the scale of development required in relation to the zones of greatest need from the employment point of view.
  A preliminary survey of a number of possible sites has been made with a view to the selection of those most suitable for industrial development. It is proposed that some part of the future factory building should be on industrial estate lines, in co-operation with, and in extension of, those trading estates, both on the north and south sides of the river, which the local authorities have already established. The North Western Industrial Estates Limited, already responsible for Government factory building in the existing South Lancashire development area, will undertake similar work on Merseyside. It is intended to reconstruct the board of
  954
  the new company so as to include directors, possibly forming a majority of the board, who have special knowledge of Merseyside's needs and problems. The remaining part of the future industrial development will take place on individual sites, and the Board of Trade are, of course, continuing their former endeavours to steer private projects to the Merseyside area, especially those which would employ men.
  In case it should be thought that this Order will act as a magic wand, I would point out that the formal act of scheduling will not result in any immediate large-scale industrial development; the greater likelihood is that the road will be both a hard and a slow one. Apart from any preliminary site development work that needs to be done, it is not by any means certain that an extension of industrial estate activities, or the building of standard factories on the lines usual in other development areas, will do more than help in the solution of some part of the unemployment problem.
  The present capital investment policy does not permit of construction of "advance factories," and all still largely depends on the number and type of projects which happen to come forward. Very few new developments are, in fact, coming forward at the moment with a predominantly male labour demand, or such as might absorb a large proportion of the semi-skilled and unskilled workless, which is the main problem in this area. The resources that can be made available for new factory building remain severely restricted, and must be limited, here as elsewhere, to projects of importance to the export trade or to import saving. Other desirable, but less essential, schemes, though in the long term they might make a contribution to employment on Merseyside, may still have to be deferred until conditions are easier. It is certain, however, that even if scheduling cannot immediately perform miracles it helps to some extent in the short term, and very considerably in the longer term. Moreover, the act of scheduling provides the earnest, if one is needed, of the Government's firm resolution that the intractable problem of unemployment in this area shall be tackled by every means at their disposal. I beg to move.

  955
  Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th of March last, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  2.48 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just moved that this Order should be approved has described it as no magic wand. It is indeed correct to say that. We may perhaps regard the Order as a useful walking stick, but not as one having magic properties. It arises, as the noble Lord has explained, under the Distribution of Industries Act which was introduced by the last Government, and which laid down that there should be a review at the end of three years to see whether any areas should be added. The Order provides, as the noble Lord has stated, two things—minor boundary alterations in Wales and a large new area in Merseyside. As to the Welsh proposals, without endangering my reputation by attempting to pronounce the names of the parishes (I notice that the noble Lord himself did not embark upon them, though he spoke with freedom of the parishes in Merseyside) I would like to welcome the inclusion of the new area in South Wales. It is topographically a sound proposal that it should be brought in and that the Amman Valley, so far as it is industrialised, should be brought into line with the district round about which is already in the development area. This, as I say, is a sound proposal.
  The second part of the Order is of wider significance. A new area will be formed which will be large and important, and will comprise well over a million souls. It is an area which has been hard hit in the past. It was hard hit in prewar years by the unemployment which occurred largely by reason of its dependance on shipping. When world trade suffered a recession, that area was seriously hit in the matter of employment. But during the war period, war-time industry mopped up a large part of this pool of unemployment. The war—artificially it is true—brought something like prosperity to this part. Now there are signs that unemployment is rising again and it is well that the Government should take note of it. To the extent that this measure will alleviate unemployment we welcome it, but we should analyse the
  956
  problem before expressing too rosy a view as to the effect this order will have. The noble Lord himself advanced that point in his speech.
  Unemployment on Merseyside is largely of unskilled men over forty years of age. This is the type of unemployed for which it is difficult to provide. In other development areas experience has shown that the factories erected tend to give employment to women and young people rather than to middle-aged unskilled men. Many of these men found work in circumstances created by the war. Some of them can still be employed on building schemes, but while this is a likely source of employment, it must have its limits. Public works, such as road construction, may also be necessary, though here again I am aware of the desirability of keeping such public works within bounds. The Government should explore every means of employment and not lay too much hope on these men being readily absorbed in the type of factories which are likely to be attracted to the development area. That is not to say that such factories will not be required or are not desirable. It is important, however, to keep a balance between the classes of labour which can be found in these areas, and I hope that in providing factories the Estates Company will keep this constantly before them.
  The President of the Board of Trade, in another place, suggested that there should be established a joint organisation—a development board or something of that character—in the new area, to assist in directing industries to Merseyside. He urged that local authorities should come together and form such a body. Such a board would clearly be useful and would be representative of local authorities and industrial interests. I would remind your Lordships, however, that there is already in existence a body known as the Lancashire Industrial Development Association, whose President is Sir Thomas Barlow. As your Lordships probably know, this Association has already contributed valuable research on the problem of unemployment. Of course, this body may not be in a position to do what the President of the Board of Trade wants the new body to do, as it covers a much wider area than the new development area. None the less, I trust the Government

  957
  are keeping fully in touch with the Development Association because it is a valuable source of information and research.
  Your Lordships will recall that distribution of industry was debated in this House about two months ago on a Motion by my noble friend, Lord Rochdale, and at that time certain dangers were pointed out in applying too closely the policy of special treatment for special areas, unless the future balance of industry in other parts of the country was also borne fully in mind. Your Lordships spent several hours on a very useful discussion on that occasion. While, therefore, we welcome the Order, it will not be out of place to remind the Government of the facts of the situation which affect the country as a whole. For three years there has been little unemployment. In fact, ever since this Government came into office they have had the good fortune to be borne along on a tide of full employment, brought about by the operation of the law of supply and demand filling the great gaps caused by the years of destruction in the war. That was also true after the last war, but in 1919 the gaps were perhaps smaller and certainly competitors put out of business were sooner restored to a position in which they were able to compete with British exports; therefore the period of artificial prosperity which followed the last war was considerably shorter.
  We hope that this time our prosperity rests upon a better basis. None the less, some of the circumstances that told against employment in 1922 and the years following are likely to reappear and it will require more than Special Orders of this character to deal with them. It is important that the Government should encourage the free play of the forces which create employment. Some of those forces are actuated by private enterprise, and some by local authorities and the State. It is important that those who seek to give employment should be disturbed as little as possible by vexatious regulations, such as development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act, or other factors of that kind. It is proper also to bear in mind that where the State is the employer as flexible a system of employment as possible should be devised. I welcome this Order as a useful if small contribution to
  958
  the problem in the Merseyside area, and hope that it will pass your Lordships' House.
  2.58 p.m.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, may I take a few moments to deal with the position of the trading estates already formed? As the noble Lord opposite has said, this is not going to be an easy road for anyone, and I point out these details in the hope that he will be able to give some encouragement to the industries now operating in these estates, with a view to preventing unemployment, which is already growing. I think it may be taken for granted that it will not be the big industries, but the medium and small industries which, in the long run, will have the biggest scope on these estates. Some three years ago they were promised a number of things. They were promised that they would get Government contracts. The noble Lord probably realises better than I do that these contracts have failed, because no system has been evolved whereby tenders for them are narrowed down to these firms. I can give one example, in which a contract for £7,000 was lost by a well-known company by a matter of £300, and forty men were immediately put off work. These industries were also promised that they would get controlled materials; but they cannot get controlled materials. They were then told they could get supplies; but they cannot get supplies. They are getting into a very precarious state, and the banks are becoming anxious about the future of the new industries that have been started on these estates. I ask the noble Lord whether anything can be done about materials and supplies.
  These firms were also told that they could get grants and loans; but the machinery is so involved that practically no grants or loans have been made. I rise only to lay stress on these serious aspects of what is going on at the present moment. I would like to make one further point. A well-known industry on the trading estate wants further capital of £20,000. They can find it, but only if there is hope of some of these promises being fulfilled. Otherwise, they will have to shut up shop, and that will be still more serious for the plan of increasing the industrial trading, estates in that particular area. I trust the noble Lord in his reply will be able to give them hope that in

  959
  some of these matters an easement will be made, which should result in the creation of more trade and the avoidance of unemployment.
  3.1 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, reference has already been made this afternoon to the Motion that I introduced in your Lordships' House two months ago on the Government White Paper, Distribution of Industry, which dealt with the development areas. On that occasion, while attempting to give the fullest credit to many individuals who have worked so hard, and with a great measure of success, in the various development areas, I could not avoid a certain amount of criticism of the extent to which the policy was being taken—an extent which I thought was being overdone, because I foresaw that there was a danger of it swinging too far and creating a lack of balance. And that, after all, was the very thing which the original distribution of industry policy was aimed at redressing. On this occasion I do not want to repeat any of the points I made two months ago, though I believe many of them to be as pertinent to our discussion on Merseyside as they were then. There are, however, one or two further points that I would like to make. I will confine my remarks to Merseyside and will not refer to the minor alterations to the South Wales development area.
  Like other noble Lords who have spoken to-day, I welcome any concrete step which will do something to overcome the very serious problem that confronts Merseyside. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I was particularly glad to hear him say this—I feel that we should be deluding ourselves, and misleading those we are attempting to assist, if we were to suggest that the passing of this Order would in any way herald the opening of a new era there. I have no doubt whatever that the present step we are taking will help. But this problem of Merseyside is a very difficult one, for which there is no short cut or easy road to solution. It is in a way far more difficult than any of the problems that have confronted other development areas.
  It has already been pointed out that the size and wealth of the economy of
  960
  Merseyside was built up during the last century on the fact that the whole area was, in effect, a port area. One has only to look at the principal activities there to realise the enormous proportion of the employment which is attributable, either directly or indirectly, to the fact that Merseyside is a port. Not only do we find shipbuilding, shipping and port facilities, transport, distribution and all the local services that are essential to the smooth running of any large community of people, but even in the case of the productive industries, such as flour milling, sugar refining, oil crushing and so forth, the industries that developed on Merseyside, starting in the last century and developing further in this century, were dependent to a large extent on the fact that their raw materials were imported through that port, and therefore, on the prosperity of the port as such. That being so, and with Merseyside serving so much of the industrial north of England, and dependent on the prosperity of the industrial north of England, it is not surprising that, with the drift of industry to the south, and particularly to areas around London, with the consequent growing importance of London as a port—and, of course, with the growing problems that the textile industry of Lancashire was meeting in its markets all over the world—the problems that began to confront Merseyside took on a very serious aspect indeed.
  That happened at a time—at any rate, up to 1930—when the population of Merseyside was still increasing. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the fact that subsequent to that year there was a considerable degree of migration from Merseyside, though by the end of the 'thirties that had, to a large extent, cured itself. The fact is that, at any rate up to 1930, the population was increasing, and in order to maintain the prosperity of Merseyside it was necessary not merely to continue the level of international trade as it was but to achieve something considerably in excess of it. That made the problem all the more difficult. It has already been mentioned that the war temporarily solved Merseyside's problems; but they have returned since the war, and other new problems have now presented themselves. Not least of these new problems has been the urgent need to cut down imports to the

  961
  maximum extent possible, particularly in regard to agricultural and food products. All that has contributed to the present position in which Merseyside finds itself.
  Attention has been drawn this afternoon to the attempts that have been made in Liverpool, with its trading estates, to overcome the problem and provide fresh employment. But the difficulty there—which will be a difficulty that will occur throughout Merseyside—is that many of the new industries which have been introduced have been of the lighter type, and, as has been said, employ a high proportion of female labour. The estimated figure of female employment, when all these new projects are completed, is 45 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the problem of unemployment of females was not a serious one. I am not at all sure that he does not underestimate even that. Talking to a number of industrialists in that area, I gained the impression that even now they sometimes have considerable difficulty in obtaining for their work the women they require. Merely to provide industry which will give a high proportion of female labour does not get to the root of the problem of Liverpool or Merseyside.
  The real problem, as Lord Clydesmuir pointed out, is this large core of middle-aged unemployed and unskilled men. It is difficult to see any immediate advantage that the passing of this Order will give in that respect. In the long run, I have no doubt, it will be possible to do something. I hope that it will be possible to introduce certain of the heavier industries there, because the heavier industries, employing a high proportion of men workers, would be able to offer some employment, at any rate after training, to those who are now unemployed. Nevertheless one must admit with regret that there may be a number of men at present unemployed who, even with training, would find it difficult to take full advantage of the new employment that might be available.
  If we look at the shorter term programme, no doubt it would be possible to introduce further light industries. I understand that Liverpool, Bootle and Birkenhead have had special facilities for getting priority for raw materials, although I understand that that has not in fact been of great assistance to them.
  962
  Therefore, even with the passing of this Order, it would appear that not much immediate advantage can be looked for, at any rate in that direction. Perhaps new light industries can be produced. As I have already pointed out, that would require a higher proportion of female labour, and the question is, where is that labour coming from? I do not know whether there is any possibility in the suggestion that I, and no doubt many of your Lordships, have heard, that something further should be done to reduce the number of women employed in football pool offices. It would represent only a small addition, but it might help. I am inclined to think that the inducements to industrialists to move into the development areas in general, and into Merseyside in particular, are less attractive than they were some years ago. The question therefore is: Can anything else be done about it in the immediate future? I hesitate to suggest it, on this occasion particularly, but it is difficult to see how some further extension to the public works programme (which has already covered much ground in Merseyside since the war) will not be necessary.
  I have mentioned a few, but by no means all, of the problems as I see them. I hope the Minister will not think that I am being unduly pessimistic about the future, or unduly critical, but I feel that these problems are so difficult that one must mention them in order to underline their importance. Undoubtedly, to have the area dealt with as a whole is a real step forward. The only doubt I had about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—and I am still in something of a haze—was regarding the central authority which is to co-ordinate this development area. I think that some central authority is vitally important if the full advantages are to be obtained. In any planning in this area, it is essential that a proper balance in all respects should be arrived at: a balance as between male and female labour, a balance as between heavy and light industry, and a balance as between industry for export and industry which is producing consumer goods. To go to either extreme must at all costs be avoided. May I give just one example of what I have in mind? If the swing went too far in the direction of goods for export, it would only be piling up diffi

  963
  culties for Merseyside in the future, because, as your Lordships fully realise, that area is already very susceptible to fluctuations in international trade. On the other hand, to go too far in the other direction, in the production of consumer goods, would surely be only to repeat what many of us feel are mistakes which have been made in some of the other development areas.
  It is not only within Merseyside that a balance must be achieved for planning. There must be a balance as between Merseyside and the surrounding industrial district. Already one hears unpleasant rumours from the South Lancashire industrial area that workers are being attracted from the already undermanned textile industries to the new industries in the North. That sort of thing can so easily happen on Merseyside, unless great care is taken to avoid it. The subject of Merseyside is an immense one, fraught with every sort of complexity, and it is impossible, in a speech in your Lordships' House, to touch upon more than a few of the points. Undoubtedly the authorities who have to deal with it will have a very difficult task. I wish them every luck that is possible; and, in saying that, I hope they will approach their task with an open and not too parochial outlook. I hope they will be prepared to learn from the mistakes of other development areas and, as has already been mentioned, from the research that a great number of other bodies have made in connection with this district during the past years. I hope they will not feel that the same solutions which were applicable to development areas in the 'thirties are necessarily applicable to a development area in 1949 and 1950. Above all things, I hope they will go out of their way to see that no Party political influence is allowed to enter into any of their calculations in any direction.
  3.17 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank noble Lords for their almost enthusiastic welcome of this Order. May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, for the implied compliment which he has paid us in having a Scotsman to accept an English Order for an English Mersey
  964
  side? One day we may have the temerity to put up an Englishman to accept a Scottish Order! I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long. If I read his remarks aright, they were so well chosen as to act as a spur to His Majesty's Government to make this scheme even more successful. May I ask the noble Viscount whether he will be good enough to let me have one or two specific examples of the type of trouble, obstruction or difficulty which he is experiencing, so that we can better see what the problem is, rather than try to understand it from generalities? If the noble Viscount will be good enough to let me have those examples, I will see that they are thoroughly investigated.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, who as usual spoke fluently and with great knowledge. He asked me one specific question which I think I should answer, because the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked me the same question. It was: Who is to be the co-ordinating authority? As regards the co-ordination required under the Distribution of Industry Act, all the points which the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, mentioned—including the balance between one type of industry and another—will come under the Board of Trade, and will be exercised through their regional organisation. Other than that, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is desirable to have other forms of co-operation—for instance, in publicising the area, and ensuring that there is not needless competition. It may well be that the organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, referred would be appropriate, but my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has suggested—and I repeat the suggestion—that the local authorities might get together and see what can be done. My right honourable friend would like to hear any suggestions from any responsible authority in Merseyside as to the best way of going about this particular problem of co-ordination, other than what is called for under the Act. I am grateful to noble Lords. I am grateful because they have appreciated that His Majesty's Government are not going to have the charge made that they are not doing everything that it is practicable to do in order to cure what all noble Lords have agreed is this very intractable problem of unemployment on Merseyside.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I did not have the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord's first speech. May I ask whether, by chance, in the list of things that His Majesty's Government are going to do to cure this "intractable problem" there will be included the reopening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not mention that because I thought it was outside the scope of the Order which we are debating.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1949
  3.21 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, March 16 last, be approved. The purpose of the Order, as your Lordships will have gathered from the discussions that have just taken place, is to add to the Scottish areas included in the First Schedule to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945—that is to say, the development areas—the following: (1) an area in the Highlands bordering on the Cromarty and Beauly Firths, and (2) parts of the burghs of Irvine and Linlithgow which are excluded by the present boundary line, which divides these burghs into two parts. As some of your Lordships will be aware, these proposals were announced in the White Paper published last October. They follow a review of the boundaries of the development areas which, under the terms of Section 7 of the Act, had to be carried out within three years of its being passed in June, 1945. As laid down in the Act, a review has been carried out in Scotland jointly by the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State. The local authorities affected have been consulted and, apart from a representation by West Lothian County Council, have offered no objections to the proposals.
  The effect of the Order will be that in the areas concerned, under the terms of the Distribution of Industry Act, certain facilities can be given by the Government to encourage industrial development. The chief of these are as follows: first, the provision of industrial sites
  966
  and the building of factories, at the Government's expense, for lease to private industrial firms; secondly, financial assistance by the Treasury, by way of block grant or loan, towards the cost of establishing new businesses in the area; thirdly, assistance by the Ministers concerned towards the cost of improving basic services, such as roads, water, sewerage and housing. All these facilities have been made available with marked success in the existing development areas. They do not, of course, imply that the Government are prepared to spend money regardless of need. In particular, at the present time it is not generally possible to build factories except for firms whose products can be exported, or which will save imports. Road, housing, water and other works, of course, are affected by the general need to limit capital investment. The scheduling of the areas proposed will mean that they have a measure of special treatment, and are given all the assistance that in present circumstances it is possible for them to have.
  May I say a few words about the reasons for the inclusion of the Highlands area? The reasons which have led the Government to include part of the Highlands in the development areas are, briefly, these. As your Lordships know—particularly those from across the Border—the problem of restoring some degree of prosperity to the Highlands and Islands has been engaging the attention of successive Governments. The population of the seven crofting counties in 1947 was about 300,000, compared with 400,000 eighty years before. Unemployment is serious. In the Highlands and Islands as a whole, it averaged, in the years before the war, about 18 per cent. of the insured population. In January, 1948, it was nearly 6 per cent. The actual number of insured workers unemployed in January, 1948, was about 3,400 and, in January, 1949, 4,570. These two figures are not strictly comparable, because the new National Insurance scheme introduced in the middle of 1948 covers a rather wider field than the old Unemployment Insurance scheme, but there is little doubt that the position in January, 1949, was slightly worse than that at the beginning of 1948.
  It is clear from these figures that the problem of economic development in the Highlands is a serious one, and needs to

  967
  be tackled by every means in the Government's power. The scheduling of this area as a development area is, of course, only one—although a very important one—of a number of measures which the Government are taking for the rehabilitation of the Highlands. If I may quote from the White Paper, paragraph 107:
  "The revival of Highland economy depends to a large extent upon the basic industries of agriculture, forestry and fisheries; upon the exploitation of the water-power resources of the area; and upon the encouragement of the tourist traffic."
  A great deal is being done, or is planned, to achieve these ends, and Government assistance or encouragement is being given otherwise than through the Distribution of Industry Act. A comprehensive programme of developments for the next five years is now in preparation and will shortly be discussed by the Scottish Economic Conference. But although it is only a part of the whole pattern, affecting only a limited area of the Highlands, some further development of productive industry is essential to their economic well-being. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 16th March last be approved.—(Lord Morrison.)
  3.28 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and I now find ourselves on our native heath where place names have no terrors, and so we are unlikely to come under the fire of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who now sits back happily with his task achieved. This Order, although it arises from machinery which is the same as that for the last one, deals with a very different type of area. The Order is in two parts, the first of which provides for boundary adjustments at Irvine and Linlithgow. I believe these adjustments are wise and timely, though I note it was stated by the right honourable Member for Linlithgow in another place that, in his view, they are overdue so far as Linlithgow is concerned. Be that as it may, this is the first review under the Act, and it is, therefore, quite understandable that adjustments should now be made.
  I should like to make a few observations on the Highland areas. As the noble
  968
  Lord, Lord Morrison, has said, the Highland problem has beset successive Administrations for seventy or eighty years. Many steps have been taken from time to time to arrest the depopulation of these areas, and still the problem persists. The noble Lord will be aware of the important part that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) plays in relation to the survey of Scottish industries, and he will, of course, be aware that the Council has urged that the Highlands should be scheduled as development areas. I therefore think that this Order will be welcomed generally in Scotland as a wise and prudent step. It appears that the comparatively narrow delimitations of the new Order are deliberately intended to concentrate on that part of the Highlands which is most likely to be able to absorb new industries, with the aid of hydro-electric power. The area selected round the Cromarty Firth, including Inverness and running out to the Great Glen, is undoubtedly worthy of development, and it is to be hoped that good results will follow from its selection.
  But Highland industries are not altogether as other industries, just as Highlanders are not altogether as other people. It requires careful and scientific study and effort to reproduce and extend all that is good in the indigenous Highland industries, crafts and processes, for these are the industries that have the best chance of survival. No doubt other industries will come, but those which are indigenous to the Highlands will have good prospects and should be fostered.
  If this area is to be a success, I think that docking facilities will be necessary. I say that because, if ships of, say, up to 10,000 tons could bring raw materials into the Cromarty Firth, I believe that there are firms which would set up factories there. The importance of getting raw materials cheaply and quickly, which can best be done by water, is very great and therefore I trust that one of the developments in the new area will be the provision of docking facilities to induce the import of raw materials. It is a matter of disappointment to some that the area does not include Fort William and that it does not extend to the south end of the Great Glen. That part of the country near to Fort William appears to be eminently suitable for

  969
  hydro-electric development and manufactures requiring electricity, for example carbide.
  There are also some people in Scotland who have expressed doubt and anxiety about the concentration of work only in the comparatively limited area set out in the Order, round the Cromarty Firth, for they would prefer to see improved opportunities for employment, not in a limited area like that, but in many small towns scattered throughout the Highlands. Their criticism is that the result of this measure might be to draw people from the Highlands into this new area round Inverness, and that would in itself cause depopulation of the glens. I note that the Secretary of State replied to this that it was better to be employed on the doorstep than far away—that is to say at Inverness rather than in the industrial belt of Scotland or over the Border or over the seas—for contact with the glens can be maintained. I think that that is so. None the less, I hope that those who are working this development order will bear in mind that the desirable thing is to keep the population actually on the land of the Highlands, or as near to it as possible.
  We must never forget that the oldest industry of all, agriculture, still employs the largest number of people in the Highlands. I do not know whether your Lordships saw an interesting letter in yesterday's Times by Major Fraser, in which he hotly contested encroachment on good agricultural land in the Highlands. It is true that industries developed such as are envisaged here will necessitate some encroachment, but the fact that in our hills, our glens and our valleys lies a great field for meat production from excellent Scottish breeds should not be lost sight of by our planners. Therefore, if development takes place, the question of leaving good agricultural land so far as possible to its proper use must be fully borne in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said, these old industries bulk largely in the welfare of the Highlands—fishing, agriculture and forestry. My belief is that the Forestry Commission can make a big contribution to the revival of the Highlands, and there are signs that they are already doing so.
  There is one difficulty which faces all Highland schemes—namely, the cost of freight. I make a strong plea for
  970
  specially reduced freights for the Highland areas, because it is clear that without some such preferential rates, the benefits which may follow from this Order will be very limited. It is true that there are special rates for bulk traffic applicable to all parts of the country, but compared with the bulk of manufacture in other parts, Highland traffic is likely to be small, and the quantity which will attract those special rates will seldom be reached. I therefore urge special consideration of reduced freights for the Highlands, run in conjunction with this scheme. I know this has been frequently urged, but it wants just an extra push to secure it. If the nationalisation of railways and road transport is to bring any real benefit to the Highlands, then the special character of these remote parts must be recognised and must receive special treatment. I believe it will be in the national interest to do so, in order that the Highlands may be preserved. So far as it goes, this Order is a wise and proper step. I should like to see it covering a wider area, but it is not an instrument that we can amend; we must take it or leave it. So we take it and accord it a welcome.
  3.37 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, after the most informative speech by my noble friend, Lord Clydesmuir, I suppose I ought to know all about this Distribution of Industry Order but, as people sometimes say that the Scots are hard-headed, dour and ill to please, possibly I am all that, and more. I would like, however, to ask for a little further information about this proposed Order. It seems to me that the Order is really twofold. Its first object, I gather, is to make provision and give power to the Secretary of State to alter the boundaries and the limits of certain areas in the existing schedule of development areas. I suppose the object of that is, chiefly, to facilitate administrative and financial arrangements in the event of extra unemployment. I see no harm in that but I do not think it will be a great advantage.
  As regards the second object, which is to give the Secretary of State powers to bring in a new Highland Order in the event or likelihood of excessive unemployment, being a Highlander I happen to know most of the area which it is pro

  971
  posed to schedule. There is no real unemployment there today, and little likelihood of extra unemployment there in the near future, or for some years to come. I know the area fairly well, and it is mainly agricultural. Agriculture is doing very well indeed in that part of the Highlands, and it is likely to do better still as time goes on.
  If there is any unemployment, it is not because of lack of industry; it is because of lack of houses. The men in this Highland area, skilled men and others who would work on the farms and in agriculture, can find nowhere to live, and therefore they cannot get employment. We would be spending our time to better advantage if, instead of giving powers to the Secretary of State to schedule a possible area, which only involves more paper work and more "jobs for the boys," we did something practical to give employment in the event of any prospect of unemployment—and we can do that by providing for the building of houses. We should spend our time better in planning something real, something that will give real employment, than in talking about adding to the development areas a district where unemployment is very unlikely to take place. Of course, it may be that the Secretary of State has in view some particular industrial enterprise that he wishes to have powers to establish—powers which he would get if this Order went through. If we are to have any additional enterprise brought into the area to make use of the electric power we have taken there, surely we do not want urban interests brought in, because the men are already leaving the land fast enough in order to go to the towns. We want rural industries established, and not urban industries. What we would like to know is whether the Secretary of State has any idea in his head of establishing particular new enterprises. If so, what are they; and are they suitable to an agricultural area or are they not? That is what we want to know, and that is the information for which I beg to ask.
  3.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to welcome this Order as being a step in the right direction. I have been interested to listen to the speeches this afternoon, because they have dealt almost
  972
  entirely with the Highlands. I was also interested to read the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place, as practically the whole of his speech introducing this Order dealt with the Highlands. I do not fully understand the Order, any more than does my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. I am not clear whether this Order applies only to small parts of the Highlands or whether it applies to the whole of the Highlands. If it applies only to a small part of the Highlands, I suggest to His Majesty's Government that they ought to have a development order applying to the whole of the Highlands, and that they ought to work out a big planned scheme for developing the Highlands along lines which Highland men and women understand. It has been suggested this afternoon that if factories were established, say, at Cromarty, they would draw men from the glens and from the farm-steadings in the crofts of the rural areas. I think that that would probably be the final effect, indeed that is bound to be the effect, unless there are proper rural industries in these out-of-the-way places where the men and women can work.
  Certain industries have been referred to this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison—afforestation, for instance. What has happened with regard to afforestation? I do not know whether I am right, but I understand that the amount of money which was allocated for the purposes of afforestation in the United Kingdom has been split up into certain sums, to be spent so much in one country and so much in the other. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that, so far as the Highlands are concerned, a sum ought to be allotted, quite apart from any ordinary expenditure that may come out of the round sum given for that purpose, to be expended on afforestation there. The same applies with regard to agriculture. Agriculture is at a low ebb. For instance, we are told that every year, at one time, something like 250,000 store cattle used to pass through the Falkirk markets near Stirling. How many pass through to-day? I would not venture to say, but they would be comparatively few. The sheep have been going off the hills; they are not there in anything like the same numbers that they used to be. What about pigs? Pigs can be produced in large numbers in the Highlands, and with the hydro-electric schemes (which

  973
  perhaps are coming in too great a number at the present moment) bacon factories could be erected and be provided with the necessary raw material.
  Then what about the woollen industry? The Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that there ought to be a carpet industry in the Highlands. Why not? But if a textile industry is to be developed in the Highlands, then I sincerely hope it will not be treated as was the hand-woven loom industry in the Orkneys and Shetlands the other day—namely, by putting on a prohibitive purchase tax. If such schemes are to be developed, I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland must be advised not only by the Board of Trade but also be in close consultation—hand-in-glove consultation—with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that what they do on the one hand is not destroyed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other.
  We have been told this afternoon that these schemes are worked out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, in consultation with the Board of Trade. I am not certain whether the Board of Trade to which the noble Lord referred is the Board of Trade in Whitehall or a special Board of Trade which is being established at St. Andrew's House. Perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten us upon that point. I would, however, venture to suggest that there ought to be some properly constituted body, apart from that at St. Andrew's House, which the Secretary of State for Scotland could consult in these matters. The noble Lord spoke about the Scottish Advisory Council—that nebulous, secretive council which never makes a report and always functions behind a black curtain. That does not seem to me to be the form of Council which will help us in Scotland to restore the Highlands. If, however, that is the Council to be utilised, will His Majesty's Government, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, use that Advisory Council in such a way that the people of Scotland may know what it advises and what it considers should be done?
  It seems to me that £10,000,000 might have been taken from the extravagant ground-nuts scheme in Tanganyika, on which already £50,000,000 has been expended with very little advantage. If
  974
  £10,000,000 of that money had been taken and allocated to the Highlands, to be spent on a properly conceived plan of development for the Highlands, based on their natural resources and along lines which the Highland people understand, we should have made a good start in the last two years towards resuscitating the Highlands, and helping to restore that part of Scotland to prosperity and, at the same time, to build up its population. I suggest that if the Government continue with a scheme of this nature—I call it a niggling scheme, compared with the magnitude of the interests involved—then in ten years' time the population of the Highlands will probably have gone down another 20 per cent. below its present level. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, told us that the population in January last showed a decline compared with the population of the year before—or of a few months before.
  LORD MORRISON: Will the noble Viscount forgive my interrupting? What I said was that last January the unemployment figure showed a slight increase, but that the population had declined over a period of eighty years.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The population is certainly not increasing now, and the probability is that, unless the Government bring forward some really large and practical scheme, the population will decrease. I have the greatest sympathy for what has been said by other noble Lords who have spoken about the problems of the Highlands, and I would conclude by saying that, while I welcome the Order, because through such an Order a start can be made, I should like to see an Order on a very much larger basis brought forward as soon as possible.
  3.53 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, may I express my thanks to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this short but interesting debate, and, with your Lordships' permission, very briefly answer one or two points which have been raised. I will, if your Lordships will allow me, answer them, so to speak, in reverse order. The noble Viscount who has just spoken complains that the present Government have not spent £10,000,000 in developing the Highlands. Surely he has forgotten that the present Govern

  975
  ment have been to a very considerable extent responsible for the development of the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, which is going to spend, when all the work that is contemplated and, indeed, has been commenced, is completed, approximately something like £50,000,000.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him, but is he quite right in saying that the present Government are responsible for the whole of the hydro-electric development in the Highlands to-day? If my recollection serves me aright, this was started under the Coalition or National Government, and a great deal was done under that Government before the present Government came into power. I really cannot let the noble Lord get away with that.
  LORD MORRISON: I think that if the noble Viscount reads the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I did not say that the present Government were solely responsible—I said they were largely responsible. I think every fair-minded person in Scotland would admit that since 1945 the present Government have not been lacking in their efforts in connection with the Hydro-Electric Board and its projects. They have done their best to assist in every way. I find that the noble Viscount always assumes a delightful air of simplicity and innocence in dealing with these matters. He said that he does not know what this Order covers, and he expressed the opinion that it ought to apply to the whole of the Highlands. It is clearly stated in the Order, which I have moved and which is available to very noble Lord, what the Order covers. The fact that he raises the question of whether or not it ought to apply to the whole of the Highlands rather indicates that the noble Viscount has not, perhaps, paid sufficient attention to what the Order is and the Act of Parliament under which the Order is proposed. An alternative to selecting this area would have been what he advocates—to schedule the whole of the Highlands, which would have been much too large an area and would have included some places such as Fort William where there is a serious scarcity of labour. The object of the Act is to deal with unemployment, whether it arises in special circumstances or in special areas. In
  976
  Fort William, as I say, there is a scarcity of labour, and, as the noble Viscount knows well, there are very isolated areas in the Highlands which are not large enough and are not suitable in other respects to cater for any substantial industrial development.
  The noble Duke said that Scotsmen were hard-headed and ill to please. I must say, straight away, that my experience has been: hard-headed, yes, but ill to please, no. The very fact that noble Lords opposite have permitted me to stand up for the cause of Scotland so often from these Benches bears out what I say—that they are not ill to please. The noble Duke raised three points. He said that he was particularly interested in the type of industries which it was hoped to attract to the new development area. He was also concerned lest serious unemployment should develop in what is primarily an agricultural area. His last point, I think, related to the question of housing. The industries which will probably have most prospect of successful operation in the Highlands, I suggest, are those which are based on the resources of the area, for example, canning or quick-freezing industries which make use of the agricultural produce of the area, industries based on forestry products or industries which require substantial quantities of electric power, to be derived from the new hydro-electric schemes. But I would emphasise that much will depend on the response made by private industry to the new facilities now to be made available, under this Order, in the area under Government auspices.
  The noble Duke would doubtless like to know what exactly are the precise figures of unemployment. Precise figures are not available of the amount of unemployment in Dingwall, since this area is included in the Inverness Employment Exchange area and figures are available only for the district as a whole. On February 14, 1949, the numbers unemployed in the Inverness area were 388 men and 171 women, a total of 559. As was indicated in the White Paper on Distribution of Industry, the area selected for development area purposes has been chosen because of its suitability as a focal centre of industrial development for the Highlands as a whole, and not merely because of its local unemployment.

  977
  The noble Duke raised the very serious question—perhaps the most serious question—of housing. The housing situation in the Highlands as a whole is difficult, as it is in the rest of the country. The noble Duke will be glad to know that the rate of progress of local authority housing has recently improved, and preliminary arrangements have been made for the importation into the Highlands and Islands of 1,000 prefabricated Swedish timber houses, 250 of which are earmarked specifically for industrial workers. These houses are particularly well adapted for erection in the Highlands, not only because of their appearance and construction, but also because the timber components of which they are made can readily be transported to remote areas.
  I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, for his very helpful remarks. He raised the question of the Great Glen. He may be interested to know that the survey of the Great Glen which was conducted last year by the Department of Health in consultation with other Departments has now been considered by the Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands and by the Scottish Economic Conference. The Secretary of State hopes to arrange for the publication of the report before long. The noble Lord also raised the very important question of the cost of freight in that area. It is true that transport charges between the Highlands and the remaining parts of Great Britain are in general high, and that these high charges have a serious effect on industry and commerce in the Highlands. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and other bodies have frequently drawn attention to the difficulties caused by these transport charges.
  Under Section 76 of the Transport Act, 1947, the British Transport Commission are bound to draw up charges schemes for confirmation by the Transport Tribunal, and it is the duty of the Commission, within two years from the passing of the Act or such longer period as the Minister allows, to draw up these schemes, and when they are prepared it will be open to interested persons to submit objections. The Scottish Council have already sent a deputation to the Transport Commission to draw their attention to the difficulties arising from the heavy transport charges in the Highlands,
  978
  and there is no doubt that when the charges schemes are prepared they will be looked at very critically by all parties interested in the welfare of the Highlands. The consideration of the charges schemes will provide an opportunity for raising any necessary objections. I should like to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this brief discussion for the helpful contributions they have made.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS, 1949
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, March 16 last, be approved. At this late hour I do not propose to make a lengthy contribution to a debate that I am anticipating with a degree of excitement, but I think it would be desirable, if your Lordships will permit me, to say a few words about the regulations contained in this Order. First of all, the Regulations are almost exactly the same as Regulations already approved, first, for England and Wales, and, secondly, for Scotland. In the compilation of the register of electors for October next, in the provisions relating to the registration of absent voters, in the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers and in the provisions dealing with Service voters, the Regulations are exactly the same for Northern Ireland as those for England and Wales and for Scotland.
  May I now have a few words about the differences that exist—because there are minor differences between the Regulations applying to the different countries? Normally, when a register of electors for the Imperial Parliament is issued in Northern Ireland it will make no provision for local government elections or local government registers. It will be confined purely and simply to Parliamentary elections. Notwithstanding that, in every third year, coincident with the publication of a spring register, there will be a Northern Ireland register for the elections to the House of Commons in Northern Ireland and for local government elections in that country. That register will be compiled under regula

  979
  tions which apply to Northern Ireland institutions only and which will have no reference to this country. Because of that arrangement, it is provided that the dates which govern the publication of the registers in this country shall be varied, in the case of Northern Ireland, in order to bring them into line with those relating to the register for the Northern Ireland elections.
  Finally, as your Lordships will have noticed in reading the Order, whereas in this country we have ceased to employ revising barristers, who hold prolonged courts to determine claims and objections, in Northern Ireland they are still maintained; and provision for them is made in this Order. With that brief explanation, I ask the House to give their approval to this Order.
  Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, March 16 last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  4.8 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been as good as his word, and has not raised any excitement. I have no intention of raising the temperature either, but before this Motion is put to the vote I should like to draw attention to a paragraph in these Regulations which may have important consequences. As the noble Lord has said, it is a paragraph which will also have appeared in the earlier Regulations already approved and which may therefore involve the same difficulties in other parts of the country. The Regulations begin by saying that they are made under the Representation of the People Act, 1948, and we shall all agree—indeed, it was implied in what the noble Lord has just said—that the Regulations as such do not and cannot enlarge the right to vote in a Parliamentary election. The right to vote in a Parliamentary election is conferred by the Representation of the People Act and not in any way by these Regulations, which are matters of machinery. Paragraph 20 (1) (b) runs as follows:
  "The registration officer before registering any person (other than a service voter) may, if he thinks it necessary—
  (b) require that person either to produce a certificate of naturalisation or to make a
  980
  statutory declaration that he was a British subject or citizen of Eire on the qualifying date."
  Of course, the reason for a certificate of naturalisation would be that the individual was not, in the first instance, a British subject, but had become such by naturalisation.
  That is not connected with the point to which I am going to call attention. The other words are:
  "…to make a statutory declaration that he was a British subject or citizen of Eire on the qualifying date."
  When you look at the Representation of the People Act, you find, as one would expect, that the persons upon whom that Act confers the right of being a Parliamentary voter are British subjects, and nobody else. So that if we are concerned simply with the Representation of the People Act, 1948—which is the governing Act—and these Regulations are made under the Act, it is apparent that the necessary test for a man to be qualified to exercise the Parliamentary franchise in Northern Ireland is that he is a British subject.
  The question therefore arises as to how it comes about that we now find in the Regulations the alternative test that he is a citizen of Eire, even though he is not a British subject. This raises the point which I raised in this House last December—it was then discussed by a number of noble Lords—as to what is the meaning of the phrase "citizen of Eire." We have been informed that on Easter Monday next, which is less than a fortnight from now, there will come into existence an independent, sovereign republic which is going to call itself the Republic of Ireland, or the Republic of Eire. At this moment, of course, everybody who lives in the Dominion of Eire—which is the condition at this moment there existing—is living under allegiance to the British Crown, and is living in an area which is within the Commonwealth. What is going to happen on Easter Monday next is that that will no longer be true. The result of what happens on Easter Monday next—I do not stop to argue about it, although I have no conceivable doubt about it—puts it beyond question that the Republic of Eire will become internationally a sovereign, independent, foreign State. It is true, as we all know, that the present Prime Minister offered the soothing

  981
  assurance that His Majesty's Government would not so "regard" it; but I am afraid that what His Majesty's Government are pleased to say they will not regard does not make any difference at all. We shall see in due course whether it is not acknowledged that the result is the creation of a new, independent, foreign, sovereign State.
  The citizens of that new State may be called citizens of Eire, but the question is whether they are citizens of Eire in any sense which can justify the use of that phrase in paragraph 20 (1) (b) of the Regulations. I need hardly say that I am not for a moment claiming to lay down the law; it is not for me, or for any member of the House, not even the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in his present capacity, to lay down the law. I am saying only that a very considerable doubt appears to some of us to arise. How does it come about that we find in these Regulations that a man may claim to be registered to cast his vote at a Parliamentary election, say, in Belfast, for the choice of a Member of Parliament here at Westminster in the House of Commons, when he is not a British subject? The answer is said to be, "Because in the middle of last year Parliament passed the British Nationality Act, 1948." That was an Act which some of us found it rather difficult to interpret; and I think, even to-day, that it contains some rather difficult language. We pointed out at the time that the clauses which dealt specially with the citizens of Eire were extremely difficult to interpret with precision.
  The reason why these Regulations put this in as one of the alternative qualifications for being a voter in a constituency in Northern Ireland at a Parliamentary election for choosing a Member for the House of Commons across the way, is to be found in Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act, 1948. That subsection says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies"
  (and no doubt the Representation of the People Act, 1948, is such a law; in fact it received the Royal Assent on the same day as the British Nationality Act) shall, until it is altered,
  "have effect in relation to citizens of Eire who are not British subjects in like manner as it has effect in relation to British subjects."
  982
  I ventured to point out in the debate last December that, to my mind at least, it was not at all clear that when Parliament in the month of July last used that language, and talked about "a citizen of Eire," it meant anything but a citizen of the Dominion of Eire. At that time Eire was a Dominion of the Crown; at that time Eire was a member of the Commonwealth. From Easter Monday next that will no longer be true. It is manifest that we must be careful not to confuse an indentity of label, as though that were the same thing as an identity of subject matter.
  One view of the matter—I speak of it with all respect, because I know it is so viewed officially—is that last July, when the Republic of Eire was not in the Contemplation of His Majesty's Ministers at all, and not in the contemplation of Parliament at all, none the less, by a process of divination, Parliament meant by "citizens of Eire" citizens of a Republic which did not then exist, and which, so far as His Majesty's Government knew, would not exist, but which, as it happened to their surprise, did come into existence at a later date. It may be so; but also it may not be so. If the one view is right, then, obviously, after Easter Monday next a man who claims to be a citizen of the independent Republic of Eire will have no right on that ground to be registered as a Parliamentary voter in Northern Ireland; though on the other view he would be entitled to do so even though he was—as I believe is sometimes the case—an American of Irish ancestry who, under the Act which was passed by Mr. de Valera, I think in 1935, had conferred on him the citizenship of Eire. I confess that it seems to me rather odd that a former cab driver in Chicago—who, when he was made a citizen of Eire, was made a citizen of a Dominion of the Crown, but who is now entirely without any sort of connection with the British Crown at all—if he resides in Northern Ireland (whatever "residence" may mean, and I do not discuss that) will acquire the right to vote for the election of a Member in the Imperial Parliament for the place where he casts his vote. Certainly Parliament did not intend that, and certainly the Government did not intend it. But stranger things have happened, and it may be that that is so.

  983
  Fortunately, the matter can now be decided judicially, because if your Lordships will look at Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, the placing of an individual on the Parliamentary register does not in itself give him a right to vote wherever he comes from and to whatever Sovereign or Republic he may owe allegiance. On the contrary, it can be challenged—and I read briefly what is provided in Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act:
  "An appeal shall lie to the county court"—
  in this case with the county court in Northern Ireland—
  "(a) from any decision under this Act of the registration officer on any claim for registration or objection to a person's registration made to and considered by him."
  It follows, therefore, that if the individual who makes this claim persuades the registration officer (by making a statutory declaration that he is a "citizen of Eire") to put him on the register, if he is not a citizen of Eire in the relevant sense he can be challenged, and the county court will then decide the meaning of "citizen of Eire" as passed in the British Nationality Act of July last year. If the court decides that it means the citizen of a Republic which did not then exist, and which neither Parliament nor the Government believed was going to exist, then he and his friends will be entitled to vote in the way they think right under the ballot in that Parliamentary election. But if, by any chance, the county court were to decide that that is not the meaning of "citizen of Eire," and that the individual, though he is a citizen of a foreign republic, is not a "citizen of Eire" in the sense in which Parliament used the words in the Act which was passed last July, then the county court will decide that he must not be included in the register of voters.
  I have no means whatever of knowing, and I do not seek to anticipate, whether such a challenge might arise; but I am very comforted to know that this matter ceases to be a controversy between lawyers—lawyers are always friends, but in a controversy we do not always take the same view—and is to be decided judicially. If it is said, "After all, the county court decision in Northern Ireland need not be regarded as a decision of the
  984
  final tribunal," it is comforting to know that there is a possible appeal. Section 70 (2) of the Representation of the People Act goes on to provide that there may be an appeal to the Court of Appeal—that would be in Northern Ireland—and it goes on to say:
  "No appeal shall lie from the decision of the Court of Appeal on appeal from a decision of the county court under this section."
  In other words, if the case does arise and goes to appeal, three Lords Justices of Northern Ireland—very skilled and competent people, as I believe they have always shown themselves to be—will decide this knotty point.
  Let me say quite plainly that I am not doing more than pointing out that the Regulations to which we are asked to give assent on the Motion moved by the noble Lord opposite, do provide the opportunity for finding out which view is right. I should think it very probable that in due course that would be so decided. It is quite true, as Lord Shepherd said at the beginning of his speech, that the same question might have arisen, and I might have made this speech, when we had the corresponding Regulations for other parts of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, I never observed the contents of the earlier Regulations. I do not know whether it was the fact that the noble Lord was so little exciting, or whether it was that I was away doing something else at the time. But it does not make any difference, because exactly the same point may arise in connection with any part of the United Kingdom if a challenge is made as to who is entitled to claim to vote on the ground that he is still a "citizen of Eire."
  Let me say this, in conclusion. I have not found very great difficulty in understanding the reason for the phrase "citizens of Eire who are not British subjects," as it was used when Eire was a Dominion. I think it plainly refers to the circumstance that the Act passed in Dublin by Mr. de Valera, which embraced a number of people of Irish origin as citizens of Eire, undoubtedly included people who were not British subjects. An American citizen of Irish extraction might be an example. So there is no difficulty about that. The point will be a very neat one, not merely interesting to constitutional lawyers—which may not matter much—but of very great importance

  985
  indeed in deciding, or helping to decide, how we shall make up the list of voters for electing Members to the British House of Commons.
  It will be observed, of course, that the question involves wider issues. When a successful candidate is elected to the British House of Commons, the first thing he does is to walk up the Chamber to take the Oath. The Oath happens to be an Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty the King. I am afraid that at present I have not succeeded in fully understanding how a future citizen of Eire, who is a citizen of an independent and foreign Republic, and who owes no sort of allegiance to His Majesty the King, can very well take an Oath of Allegiance to him. But that is a matter which no doubt will be settled hereafter. I am concerned in pointing out to the House—and I think it should be pointed out clearly—only that there is no need to have any further controversy between competitive legal opinions. It may be that the view I have formed is wrong, and in that case I shall be quite willing to receive correction. At any rate, the matter now arises and it arises in a perfectly definite way. It will arise when these lists are made up in Northern Ireland, and one way or another it will be judicially decided. That being so, I do not offer any opposition to the Motion which the noble Lord opposite has moved. As he truly says, in substance these Regulations follow a common pattern. I should think they are perfectly reasonable Regulations; and I have ventured to intervene merely to point out, as clearly as I can to anybody who happens to be interested in the subject, that now we shall get a judicial decision on what I think is a rather difficult and doubtful point.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of saying that I am at one with the observations which my noble and learned friend has made. I should be glad if the point were cleared up.
  4.31 p.m.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, in opening this debate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, observed that the hour was late. The hour now, of course, is still later, but I trust that I shall be forgiven if I make a few observations, for I do not entirely accept the view that either the noble and learned Viscount, Lord
  986
  Maugham, or the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has expressed—that is, that we should accept these Regulations without more ado. I do not wish—indeed, it would be impertinent and presumptuous if I were to do so—to express any opinion on a point of law. My object is to suggest to your Lordships that, in the circumstances, these Regulations should not be approved. This is not a question to be settled by a county court judge in Northern Ireland or, on appeal, by three Judges sitting there; it was settled by Parliament. The question is whether a citizen of an independent, sovereign Republic should be entitled to cast a vote in the election of a Member of the House of Commons of this country.
  The question turns really upon the meaning of the section of the British Nationality Act which my noble friend quoted. Nobody, I am sure, thought, at the time when that Act was passed, that the result would be to confer this franchise upon the citizens of an independent Republic. We were told in express terms on behalf of the Government that at the time when the negotiations were being carried on they had no idea that this declaration of an independent Republic was to follow. That assurance was, I am sure, quite unnecessary, for His Majesty's Government, in their mad rush to disintegrate the British Empire, have proved, as much by their lack of foresight as by their lack of caution, that no one could attribute to them the capacity for caring what was going to happen. It was the case of the blind leading the blind—and, unfortunately, it was we who were the blind and who have fallen into the ditch. What dismays me is that the blind conductor, having led us there, should now turn round and congratulate himself on having brought us into that unenviable position.
  I should have thought the proper thing for the Government to do now was to remedy that which they have inadvertently done in conferring this franchise. No one, surely, will contend that it is right that a citizen of Eire, who owes no allegiance to the King, should be able to cast a vote in a Parliamentary election in this country. This Regulation confers no right; the right is there already. All that the Regulation does is to provide a means whereby the right can be vindicated. At the same time, if we

  987
  accept the Regulations, we actually sanctify that right—
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I hope the noble Lord will not think that that is my attitude.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I am sure it is not; but the world at large will think that it is our attitude if we accept these Regulations; if we accept this claim to vote on the basis of citizenship of Eire, and nothing else, the world at large will think that we are at least consenting—which we are not. If, on the other hand, the right exists, it is a right which all of us surely will agree should not exist. Therefore I suggest that it is not right that these Regulations should be approved. My noble and learned friend carefully abstained from expressing his own view—though one may guess what view he held—and in the circumstances it would be improper for me to express mine. This Regulation makes it possible for a citizen of this new Republic to have the right to intervene in our affairs. Against that I protest, and I invite your Lordships to reject the Regulation.
  4.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I should not have intervened but for the speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. I think it is right, however, that I should now intervene in what is a very important debate, and a debate which I am extremely glad has taken place. I should like to make perfectly plain the legal position as I see and accept it, and to express the opinion of my noble friends in this House on the political implications, or the absence of political implications, in what we do to-day. As I understand it, these Regulations are a mere piece of machinery. The only reason why there are separate Regulations for Northern Ireland, and that they did not come into the general Regulations for England and Wales—I do not know about Scotland—
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): That has been done.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: —is that there seems to be a difference in Northern Ireland between the Parliamentary franchise and the local franchise. But what is abundantly clear is this: that
  988
  these Regulations are only a piece of machinery. Whether we pass them or whether we do not makes no difference whatsoever to any Act which this Parliament has passed, whether it be the Representation of the People Act or the British Nationality Act. We do not in the least affect the validity of those Acts or their interpretation—whatever be the right interpretation—if we refrain from passing these Regulations. Moreover, I do not believe it would be possible (I speak subject to correction) by a different form of Regulation to amend either of those Acts. I suppose that Parliament can do almost anything, but I should think the one limitation upon Parliament is that it cannot do by Regulation something which can be done only by Act of Parliament. Therefore, if it was our desire to amend an Act of Parliament, we could not do so either by refraining from passing these Regulations or by passing a different set of Regulations. That can be done only by an amending Act of Parliament.
  I also want to make my political position perfectly plain as regards these Regulations. I am not going to express an opinion on what I think the law should be, beyond saying this: I am not going to express a legal opinion on the Regulations. It will rest with the courts to decide the legal interpretation of the British Nationality Act. I imagine that the courts will pay no attention to what was presumed to be the intention of Parliament from its debates. They will have to look only at the rather obscure wording of this Act of Parliament. But, speaking for myself and, I should think, for practically every noble Lord in this House, I do say this: that when we passed that Act of Parliament (to which your Lordships will remember I took the strongest possible exception at the time), nobody contemplated that we were passing an Act of Parliament which had anything whatever to do with the Republic of Eire. I am quite certain of that.
  I remember that when I myself advanced arguments dealing with this obscure Irish clause and took exception to it, I was greatly taken to task by the Government spokesman—upon what ground? On the ground that, if we did not accept this clause, and the arrangement enshrined in it, we should be throwing

  989
  away a wonderful opportunity of reconciling Eire to this country and to the Commonwealth. Back went the argument, over decades of time, to the opportunities that had been lost under Mr. Gladstone; we were begged to accept this because it was to be a great and lasting settlement. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. As soon as the Irish election was over, contrary to the expectation of those who approved the Act, the Government of Eire introduced a Bill to establish an independent Republic and to declare themselves upon an appointed day—which will be Easter Monday—an independent Republic, a foreign State entirely outside the British Commonwealth. We certainly did not expect that.
  As I have said, we cannot do anything about it. If I may respectfully say so to him, on behalf of my Party, I entirely reject the implication which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, has made: that by allowing these Regulations to go through, anybody in this House is giving any assent, express or implied, either to what was done in the British Nationality Act or to the legal interpretation which may be put upon the British Nationality Act—and still less to what may be our attitude when the Republic of Ireland becomes an independent State on Easter Monday, as a result of which, as the Lord Chancellor has said, it will be necessary to introduce new legislation into this House. Upon that, I entirely reserve my position, and the position of those who act with me. It would be quite improper on these Regulations to discuss that position. Nothing that we said to-day could have the least effect upon any new legislation; and nothing we say or do to-day can in the least fetter our judgment or discretion as to what may be the right attitude to adopt on that occasion.
  Speaking, as I do, as the acting Leader of the Opposition, I have thought it necessary to say that—I am sure the Government will agree that that is a perfectly fair political position to take up—so that nobody will seek to argue against noble Lords on this side of the House that we are in any way committed. No political issue arises to-day, although I am extremely glad that the case has been clearly and fairly stated by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. That is our political position
  990
  and, that being our political position, I would counsel the House with certainty that it is not committing itself at all by letting these Regulations go through. As the noble and learned Viscount points out to me, we are actually passing these Regulations on April 5, when Ireland is a Dominion; and it cannot be a Republic until the appointed day arrives.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I think the noble Viscount who has just spoken as the acting Leader of the Opposition has taken a perfectly fair point of view. I agree with everything he has said. He is in no way committed to anything by passing these Regulations. I should have thought this, at least, was plain to a first-year student: that, by passing Regulations, you cannot alter or enlarge the scope of an Act of Parliament. The Regulations depend upon and hang from the Act of Parliament and can only carry out the Act of Parliament. If the Regulations have gone further than the Act of Parliament, then the Regulations are bad. I am glad that the Regulations can be tested by a court of law, and we can see presumably which view is right with regard to this matter.
  I say these few words because an attack has been made upon the Government in what I venture to say was a somewhat irresponsible speech of the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, who said that we were in a hurry to dash away and break up the British Empire, and that it was a case of the blind leading the blind. I myself had a good deal to do with this matter. I told your Lordships before, and I say again, that the threatened passage of this Bill, which is, I understand, going to become an Act on April 18, put us in a position of great difficulty. It was a measure which I personally deplored. It is the fact, as we all agree, that at the time when we were discussing the British Nationality Bill, we had no idea that there was going to be such a situation. I myself conducted the negotiations in Paris. I had the great good fortune to be associated with the distinguished statesmen of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Believe me, none of us, from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or even from this country, wanted to break up the British Empire. We wanted to know what was the right and sensible thing to do in

  991
  these circumstances. It may have been right or it may have been wrong, but we all came to a conclusion, and we took the only sensible course. Had we taken any other course, we should certainly have found ourselves at cross purposes with the other member States who were there represented and who had large Irish populations. Therefore, I repudiate entirely the statement that we were rushing with haste to give away or to break up the British Empire. We were trying sensibly to deal with a very difficult situation which had arisen without our knowledge and against our wishes. So much for that.
  I can understand the point of view of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that had it not been for the doubt which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, expressed, I should have thought that this matter was plain beyond argument. That is the view which the Law Officers and the Home Secretary in another place and all our legal advisers have formed. It turns entirely on the construction of the British Nationality Act. In the main, it turns on the construction of the particular section, Section 32, to which reference has been made—I say "in the main" because there are other indications. I think the definition of "foreign country" is
  "a country other than the United Kingdom, a Colony, a country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act, Eire, a protectorate,"
  and so on. But Section 3 (2), omitting the words which I think are not material for this purpose and substituting some simplified words, reads as follows:
  "…any law which by virtue of any Act of Parliament passed before…."
  the 1st January, 1949
  "comes into force…."
  in the United Kingdom
  "on or after that date, shall…continue to have effect in relation to citizens of Eire who are not British subjects in like manner as it has effect in relation to British subjects."
  I read that, and it has been read by all our advisers, as meaning this: that where there is an Act coming within that category which refers to and uses the phrase "British subject," you must give to that phrase "British subject" the expanded meaning of "British subject or citizen of
  992
  Eire." That may be right or it may be wrong, but that is the view which we have formed. The noble Viscount has indicated his doubt (which of course I respect) as to the correctness of that view, but so far as I am concerned I adhere to the view which I have expressed as being the correct view, though I am happy to think that the correctness of the view can be tested.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for one moment? There is no difficulty in defining an issue, and I quite agree with him that the answer would be that it is a matter to be decided judicially hereafter. But when the phrase "citizen of Eire" is used in the British Nationality Act, surely the issue is: what is the range which it covers? That is the issue, and no reading of any section will alter that. I think my noble friend will agree with me there.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree that that is the substance of it. And the form of Government which Eire has, the name by which she calls herself, does not alter the fact at all, any more than anyone would doubt that Burma, which used to be a Dominion and has now become an independent country, whatever else she is, remains Burma. I take it that it would be perfectly plain that a person who was a citizen of Burma when Burma was a Dominion would be to-day a citizen of Burma now that Burma is an independent Republic. That is the issue, and it can, of course, be defined in the courts, where they can deal with the matter.
  The noble Viscount, the acting Leader of the Opposition, reminded your Lordships that in the very near future we are to have a Bill dealing with the Irish position—certain consequential alterations have to be made—and when that Bill comes up it will, of course, be perfectly open to any of your Lordships to whom the terms of the Bill are not satisfactory to move Amendments dealing with the whole position. Manifestly, the time to do that is on some Bill and not on a group of Regulations which seek to give effect to what is already in an Act. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree with us in passing these Regulations.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CONSULAR CONVENTIONS BILL
  4.55 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This small Bill comes to your Lordships' House from another place, where it was unopposed but where one or two improving amendments of detail were made. It is, I hope, an uncontroversial Bill. It is submitted in order to enable His Majesty's Government to ratify the Consular Convention with the United States of America which was signed on February 16 last. It is also hoped to conclude similar Consular Conventions with appropriate foreign countries in the future.
  For a long time now, it has been the practice of other countries to conclude Consular Conventions defining the functions of consuls and also fixing the immunities and privileges which attached to the position of consul. Until the negotiations which have just been concluded with the United States of America, the United Kingdom had stood aside from this practice. The reason was that for many years it was thought that a good deal of domestic legislation would be required to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil the obligations undertaken in such Conventions.
  Just before the Second World War, however, the conclusion was reached, after consultation with the Law Officers of England and Scotland, that in the main the provisions of such a Convention could be carried out in this country, either because they involved obligations which could be carried out by executive action or because the provisions were consistent with the general principles of international law which are recognised by the courts here as part of the law of this country. Accordingly, towards the end of hostilities negotiations were commenced with the United States which have led to the conclusion of the Convention already mentioned.
  It is only in connection with three points of the Convention that the need for legislation arises. As I hope to show, the amendments to the law are small. Moreover, His Majesty's Government
  994
  are satisfied that the provisions of the Convention which require this legislation are most beneficial in the interests of British consulates abroad and involve, so far as foreign consuls here are concerned, no undesirable innovations in our law.
  Article 18 of the Convention contains provisions regulating the powers and functions of consular officers with regard to the estates of deceased persons when nationals of the consular officer have a beneficial interest as legatees or next of kin in such estates. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill enable the consul to obtain administration of the estate of a deceased person in circumstances where the consul's nationals would have themselves been entitled to obtain it if they had been present in the country or had been represented there. The consul has this right only if his nationals are not resident in the country and are not able, or do not wish, to take steps to protect their interests by applying for a grant themselves.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Is that in the Bill? Does the Bill contain words to the effect that the consul can do it if the person named does not want to take action?
  LORD HENDERSON: Those words are taken out of the Convention.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes, but I am looking at the Bill. I beg your pardon for interrupting.
  LORD HENDERSON: The Bill states:
  "…that the said national is not resident in England, and if no application for a grant of such representation is made by a person duly authorised by power of attorney to act for him in that behalf…."
  The consul comes in only in the last resort. Moreover, the court has the full discretion to postpone the making of a grant to a consular officer in order to ascertain if his absent national really prefers that the consul should act for him to taking steps to be individually represented in his own name. That is the proviso. The reason for two clauses, instead of one clause, is that the law of Scotland is different from that of England, and I am advised by the Law Officers for Scotland that, given the difference of the law between the two countries, the effect of the two clauses is mutatis mutandis the same.

  995
  There are only two further points in connection with Clauses 1 and 2 which, perhaps, require special comment. As subsection (3) of Clause 1 shows, the grant to a foreign consular officer is a grant to the holder of that office—for example, to the United States Consul at Liverpool. Consequently, no new grant is required if the actual individual who occupies the office of United States Consul at Liverpool is changed because he dies, moves to another post or is replaced. Further, his successor succeeds to his liabilities, as well as his rights in respect of the administration. In this connection I may perhaps invite attention to paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Convention, which shows that whatever immunities the consul may enjoy in respect of his other official acts (for instance, under Article 11) he enjoys no immunities in respect of his administration of estates if he chooses to undertake this burden. Clause 3 of the Bill corresponds to this paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Convention.
  The second point arises on subsections (4) and (5) of the first clause. Because in these cases administration is being given to the holder of the office of consul, a high officer of a foreign Government, for whose actions his Government have responsibility, the consul is not required, as an unofficial administrator is, to give surety when he signs his administration bond; and he is permitted to administer an estate alone when, unless it happened to be a trust corporation, an ordinary private administrator would have to have at least one colleague.
  I turn now to Clause 4 which provides, subject to safeguards which I will mention in a minute, that the office of a consulate (that is to say the place where the business is carried on, and where the archives, which are inviolable, are kept) shall not be entered without the consent of the consular officer or, if that consent is refused or cannot be obtained, the consent of a Secretary of State. This provision is to carry out paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Convention. The words in the Convention are: "The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs" and in the Bill "a Secretary of State." Internally, effect would be given to this by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case might be, authoris
  996
  ing police to enter, but only after having obtained the concurrence of the Foreign Secretary.
  As your Lordships will see, these consents are not required in certain cases—for instance, in case of fire, or if there is reason to believe that a crime involving violence has been, is being or is about to be committed in the consular office. Nor does it apply where, under the conditions under which the consular building is held, there is some private right by or on behalf of the landlord to inspect the condition of the premises. Further, as subsection (2) shows, this immunity does not apply if the consul in charge of the office is a local citizen or is not a national of the country whom he represents. Further, as subsection (3) shows, the immunity applies only to that part of a building which is exclusively used for consular business.
  While it is perfectly clear in international law that an Embassy building is, so to speak, inviolable, the position of a consular office is less well defined. It is certainly the practice of a great many countries to give an immunity as high as, or higher than, that provided for in Clause 4 to consular offices. But I am advised that it could not be said that the immunity in international law of a consular office is sufficiently definite to enable it to be said with certainty that it forms part of that international law which would be recognised and applied by the courts of this country.
  Hence, Clause 4, which gives a limited and strictly safeguarded immunity, falling far short of that of a foreign Embassy. With the safeguards which the Clause contains, I submit that it should create no undesirable consequences so far as its application in this country is concerned; and I would emphasise that it is a form of protection which is much valued for British consulates abroad.
  I will deal with Clause 5 in a minute. Clause 6 provides for the application of Clauses 1 and 2, on the one hand, and of Clause 4, on the other, to the consuls of foreign States with which a Consular Convention providing for reciprocal treatment for the consulates of His Majesty has been concluded.
  The application is by Order in Council. An Order in Council can be made in respect of a country covering Clauses

  997
  1 and 2 only, or covering Clause 4 only or covering Clauses 1 and 2 and 4. But Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be applied to a country unless it is giving similar opportunities to British consuls to obtain the administration of estates, and Clause 4 cannot be applied to any country unless it has recognised a similar immunity for British consulates in its territory.
  Clause 5 makes small amendments to two different sections of the Merchant Shipping Act which require no Order in Council for their application and do not require the conclusion of a Convention requiring reciprocity. Subsection (1) empowers the Minister of Transport to deliver to a foreign consular officer money or other property of a deceased seaman when the person for whom the money or property is destined is resident in the State which the foreign consular officer represents. The Minister already has powers, under the Merchant Shipping Act, to pay over to the person who appears to be entitled to it, without a grant of administration, the proceeds of the estate of a deceased seaman which does not exceed £100 in value. This clause merely enables the Minister, when the person who ought to receive the money is resident in a foreign country, to pay it over to the consul of that country in order that the latter may be responsible for seeing that the money reaches its proper destination.
  The second subsection makes an even smaller amendment to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act relating to foreign wrecked vessels. Already foreign consular officers have certain powers, as ex-officio agents of the absent owners of the articles, who are his nationals, in regard to the custody and disposal of articles coming from a foreign wrecked vessel. The subsection gives the foreign consul the same powers, as regards the wrecked hull itself of a vessel which flies the flag of the consular country. Though, as I have stated, the operation of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 5 are not dependent on the conclusion of a Consular Convention, nevertheless they are required for the purposes of the fulfilment of the Convention with the United States. Thus, subsection (1) corresponds to Article 27 of the Convention and subsection (2) to Article 25.
  Clause 7 contains merely provisions for the adaptation of the Bill to Northern
  998
  Ireland, and Clause 8 repeals Section 4 of the Domicile Act of 1861. The Domicile Act of 1861 contained provisions the purpose of which is generally similar to that of Clauses 1 and 2 of the present Bill, but the provisions of the old Act were not, from the practical standpoint, very happily conceived.
  We therefore consider that it would be better and tidier to make no further use of Section 4 of the Domicile Act 1861 but to leave applications of consular officers to be dealt with as provided in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. I trust that with that brief, but I hope not unsatisfactory, explanation of the need for, and purposes of, the Bill, the House will feel able to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Henderson.)
  5.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord for the explanation which he has given us of the contents of this Bill. The explanation was extremely clear, and I think the impression and the hope which he has that the Bill will be given a Second Reading without challenge are likely to be fulfilled. He is dealing with a difficult subject, even though he has his responsibilities at the Foreign Office. My own knowledge of the matter is "rusty", so if I make a mistake I may be forgiven. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that the extent to which a consul or a consular office has immunity is not clearly defined and generally agreed to the same extent to which the rights of an Ambassador or diplomatic Minister are universally recognised.
  Consuls do not enjoy the position of full diplomatic envoys. They have, of course, a special position in the area in which they serve, because it is usually a portion of the country in which they operate as the authorised consul. They are not like the ordinary citizen of a foreign State who finds himself in the country. As law students will remember, they receive from the head of the admitting State what is called an exequatur, which I imagine is Latin for "let him perform" his function. They receive that on presenting to the Foreign Secretary their patent of appointment. Thus they are recognised by the admitting State as the agents of the appointing State. But to what extent in different

  999
  conditions they enjoy a special immunity is, I know, something not universally agreed, and it may be very proper to make such a Consular Convention as has been negotiated with the United States of America.
  Once or twice in the course of his speech the noble Lord made reference to the relation between international law and our own common law which we recognise and apply in our courts. If one is to refer to that, I think it is necessary to state it accurately. I do not accept the proposition, in the broadest sense, that international law is the law of England. For example, if we negotiate a treaty with a foreign power, let us say a treaty under which we agree that our citizens shall not fish in a certain area, and if none the less one of our citizens does so, I do not think he could be punished. There has been a breach of the international Agreement to that extent, but it is necessary to have a domestic Act of Parliament in order to put the duty upon the citizen. In the same way, I should have thought that it would not be correct to say—perhaps it was not intended to be said—that since by international law the consuls' official premises are regarded as having an immunity from forcible entry, therefore if a policeman obtained a warrant from a magistrate and entered the consular premises, the policeman could be punished. I would not have thought so. No doubt we have agreed as a State with a foreign State that that should not apply; but our business then is to pass an Act of Parliament to make that prohibition effective as against an individual who might act contrary to it. Indeed, unless I have entirely misunderstood it, that is the very object of this Bill. The reason why we are not content with having a Consular Convention with the United States about these matters is because that in itself would not have the effect which this Bill will have.
  For example, Clause 4 says:
  "A consular office of a State to which this section applies shall not be entered by a constable or other person acting in the execution of any warrant…"
  The moment we have enacted that, we apply that which we have arranged with a foreign country in such a way that an individual in this country is bound by it. I agree that this Bill is required. All I wish to say is that this is the sense in
  1000
  which we can say that international law is part of the law of England. Those who from time to time have the business of setting examination papers on these dreary subjects are entitled to propound the conundrum for intelligent students: "Is international law part of the law of England?" A good answer could be written—and a very bad one, too!
  I agree with the Bill. The point about which I feel some anxiety is the provision contained in Clause 6, which contemplates that similar Consular Conventions may be entered into with other countries and, if I follow rightly, may be entered into without any further reference to Parliament. I will not mention any country—that would be most indiscreet—but it is pretty plain that there are some countries in Europe with whom we might hesitate to make a Consular Convention (which is presumably meant to be reciprocal, though I do not see the word "reciprocal" in the Bill), because we are not sure that they will treat our representatives in the same way as we treat theirs. Clause 6 says:
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that sections one and two or section four of this Act shall apply to any foreign State specified in the Order, being a State with which a consular convention providing for matters for which provision is made by those sections has been concluded by His Majesty."
  I am going to assume that that means "with which reciprocal arrangements have been made." I am sure that that is what is meant. We might consider later on whether it would be desirable to bring in such a word as "reciprocal." But manifestly, so far, a Convention can be made according to the judgment of the Government of the day, without any Parliamentary reference whatever. I think nothing but good of His Majesty's Government in this connection. I am sure they would act prudently. But this is an Act for all Governments, whether better or worse than the present one. It gives power by Statute to any Government in this country to make, by Order in Council—which is a purely Executive act which nobody can control—a Consular Convention with any foreign State they think it wise to select.
  It is true that an Order in Council may be rejected under subsection (2) of Clause 6, but the third subsection gives me no comfort at all. It says:

  1001
  "Any Order in Council made under this section shall be laid before Parliament after being made."
  That is merely for information. It does not say that Parliament has any control over it; it merely says that it shall not be done without Members of Parliament knowing it is done. Though I do not for a moment ask the noble Lord to make any statement now, I suggest that we ought to consider, before passing this Bill, whether there ought not to be to a greater extent than is at present in the Bill some Parliamentary check on the spread of this scheme to other foreign countries as yet unnamed. That is something which occurred to me on reading the Bill, and I do not seek to do more than mention it to-day.
  For the rest, I think the Bill is a good Bill. It was considerably improved in the course of its handling in the other place—because, I may say, of some questions and difficulties raised by Opposition speakers. I apologise to my noble friend opposite for having interrupted his statement, but it illustrates what I mean. As the Foreign Office introduced the Bill in another place, there was nothing in it to prevent a consular officer who finds that there is property in this country to be dealt with, because of the owner's death and because the executor named does not reside here, jumping in and taking charge of the business without a reasonable interval being allowed. As things are now I should think that that would work all right, because, of course, our own courts would take care that this—which the noble Lord described as a method to be used only in the last resort—was not rushed. Therefore, even though a man does remain abroad, he will have an opportunity, if he prefers, of himself acting as indeed the testator desired he should act.
  There are one or two other points which will have to be raised—I know that, because I have had a conversation with my noble friend Lord Perth. I do not wish to anticipate what he is going to say. He has a great knowledge of this subject, having been for so many years an Ambassador, and, as such, having under his supervision and control the consuls in the countries to which he was accredited. He has some points to make and, therefore, I merely say, for my part, that I have no doubt that we
  1002
  ought to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I am obliged to the noble Lord opposite for the way in which he has explained it.
  5.22 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has made it clear that the primary object of this Bill is to allow the Government, once the Bill has become law, to advise His Majesty that the Convention which was signed in February with the United States of America can properly be ratified. The Bill is a much shorter document than the Convention itself. The reason for that is clear, as the noble Lord explained. A great many of the clauses of the Convention can be brought into force by executive action but, as was pointed out, legislation has been required on three points in the Convention. The first two enable the consular officer in certain cases to administer the estate of a deceased person, and to represent the beneficiary of that estate; the second is to make certain rather small changes in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and the third is in regard to the immunities and privileges of consular officers. The first two points are of a very technical character, and are mainly of a legal nature. I do not propose to venture into those. The few remarks I desire to make will be concentrated solely on the question of immunities and privileges.
  As in the case of diplomatic privileges and immunities, the immunities and privileges of consular officers are in essence based on reciprocity. In the case of diplomatic immunities and privileges the practice is fairly clearly set out in the various textbooks. But, that is not the case in regard to the privileges and immunities of consular officers, which are left extremely vague. In the Convention these privileges and immunities are set out. If I may say so, they seem to me to express admirably what the practice should be between two extremely friendly countries who wish to adopt the policy of the good neighbour. From that point of view, I welcome the Bill and the Convention. I want to be assured, however, that should we conclude Consular Conventions with other countries, such Conventions will not necessarily embrace all the provisions in the Convention to which I have just alluded. To put it another

  1003
  way, I hope that such Consular Conventions will not necessarily conform completely to what I may call this admirable model, but may be open to modification so that account can be taken of all the existing circumstances. If I receive such an assurance I shall be much happier.
  I seek that assurance because it seems to me that in certain cases we might be better off under the existing practice than if we concluded a Consular Convention. I will take Clause 4, which to my mind constitutes the main provision. Broadly speaking, under that clause a consular office is not to be entered by the police, except with the consent of the consular officer; or, if that is not obtainable or is withheld, the consent of a Secretary of State is required before entry can be made. Let me take an example of a country with whom we have a Consular Convention on these lines, and which wanted the police to take precipitate action and make an entry into the consular office. The police could, surely, proceed to the consulate with a provisional authority from the Minister of the Interior, or whoever corresponds to the Secretary of State, already made out in case of refusal by the consul to allow admission. The consul refuses, the police produce the authority, they enter and the whole matter is completed. In that event the consul has had no time whatever to appeal, either to his diplomat, who exercises general supervision, or to his Government, and yet the letter of the Convention has been observed. For that reason, I feel we should be very careful in regard to the countries with whom we conclude Consular Conventions in the future.
  That brings me to my last point. I have referred to the diplomatic head of the Mission who exercises a general superintendence over the consuls in the country to which he is accredited; but there is no mention made of him either in the Bill or in the Convention. Frankly, that seems to me to be rather odd. It may have been thought, of course, that if a consular officer into whose consulate the police demand entry refuses that entry, he will then be able to, and would naturally, communicate with the diplomatic head of the Mission. I feel, however, that something more explicit than that is required. I realise that it is too late to make any change in the text of the
  1004
  Convention with the United States; but, as I say, I think something more is necessary. Let me give an example of the sort of thing that might happen. Let us suppose that when I was His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome, the Italian police (I am assuming that a Convention had been concluded) had demanded entry into the consulate in Milan, that the consul had refused entry, and that the entry took place on the authorisation of the Italian Minister of the Interior. If I had been neither informed nor consulted by the Italian Government, I should have been very angry, and would have sent in a very strong protest which I should have expected to be completely backed up by His Majesty's Government. Yet the Italian Government, acting thus, would have been complying strictly with the letter of the Consular Convention.
  I do not think such a situation ought to be allowed to arise, and I hope very much that something will be done to remedy it. Obviously, I do not ask for an immediate reply from the noble Lord, but I hope that he will give it further consideration, because I think the matter is of some importance. It may be of great importance to His Majesty's Ambassadors in their various posts, and I think that perhaps it may have escaped the notice of the draftsman. Apart from those observations, I welcome the Bill as a whole. I do not want to enter into this very difficult controversy about Clause 6. I am torn between two opinions. I would hate to interfere with what is known as the Royal Prerogative of Treaty-making, and whether or not Parliament should have the right to give approval to a treaty before it is ratified. It is a very difficult problem, but I am glad the noble and learned Viscount raised it, because it gives us all a great deal to think about.
  5.32 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am very grateful for the friendly reception which has been accorded to the Bill, and for the knowledge which I now have that the Bill is to get a Second Reading. There are one or two points to which I might make brief reference. The noble and learned Viscount assumed—if I may say so, quite rightly—that this is on a reciprocal basis, and the basis of reciprocity is, of course, provided for in the Convention.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: It is not in the Bill.
  LORD HENDERSON: The Convention gives the reciprocity and the Bill merely provides new powers which are not already in existing law. The noble Viscount also raised a query about Parliamentary check on new Conventions. I think I am able to claim that the way in which the Government is handling this Bill and the Convention is in accordance with historical practice carried on by many Governments. The point which the noble Viscount and the noble Earl had in mind was the question of new Conventions. At the moment, there are only two Conventions for which we hope to conclude negotiations in a very short while, and that is with France and Egypt. But I can assure the House that it is not the purpose of the Government to conclude such Conventions except in the case of countries with whom there are cordial relations.
  The point has been raised as to what would be the position of a Consular Convention with a country with whom those good relations subsequently deteriorated. We hope, of course, that those circumstances will not arise, but if such cases did occur, the appropriate course might be to terminate the Convention and to revoke the Orders in Council. Such action, if required, would be possible, since it is not proposed to include in any new Convention any provision that the Convention shall necessarily continue in force for a specified number of years. There will no doubt be a provision requiring a prescribed period of notice to be given to terminate the Convention, and this provision could be invoked by the Government when occasion arose. I suggest to your Lordships that that provides adequate protection against Consular Conventions being concluded or continued with countries with whom it might be undesirable to have such Conventions. However, the noble Viscount has made the point, and naturally I will take it back and have it considered.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: That is all I ask.
  LORD HENDERSON: Of course, the Convention between this country and America will not necessarily be the text
  1006
  for other Conventions. I can give your Lordships an assurance that any new Convention with any country will obviously take into account all the circumstances. The noble Earl raised the question of the omission to inform the head of diplomatic missions in the event of the application of Clause 4. I have made a note of that suggestion, and no doubt it will be considered in relation to the text of other Conventions. I think those were the main points which were raised, and I hope that following upon those few remarks your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to Committee of the Whole House.

  LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL
  5.35 p.m.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill, which is purely a machinery Bill, shall be read a second time. It is a Bill which was welcomed by all political Parties in another place, and I believe it raises no controversial issues whatever. It is designed to strengthen and unify the statutory arrangements for settling disputes in regard to the valuation of land. Your Lordships will know that at the present time disputes of this kind are generally referred to one of the official arbitrators appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. These arbitrators are whole-time surveyors of high professional standing, and they are appointed by a Reference Committee which consists, in England, of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. In Scotland, the Reference Committee consists of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Chairman of the Scottish Branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. At present, the arbiters in Scotland are on a part-time basis.
  This system of arbitration was regarded as a striking innovation when it was introduced thirty years ago, and it has certainly served the country well. The Government propose in this Bill to bring the system to an end in its present form,

  1007
  but I think all of us who have had experience of its working would desire to pay tribute to the ability with which a succession of skilful arbitrators have discharged their difficult duties. I think we ought also to express our appreciation of the wise guidance which has been given by the Reference Committee, who have had the duty not only of appointing arbitrators but also of making the rules governing the procedure before them. I thought it right, therefore, before the Bill was introduced, to discuss the Government's proposals confidentially with the present members of the Reference Committee of England and Wales, just as the Secretary of State for Scotland has discussed these proposals with the members of the Reference Committee in Scotland. I am glad to be able to say that those high authorities are in general agreement with the proposals which we have in mind.
  The reasons for a change are quite simple. The official arbitrators are specially qualified in matters of valuation, but they are not lawyers. Disputes on questions of law can be referred to the High Court by way of stated case, and this arrangement has hitherto been generally satisfactory, though it has sometimes been felt a disadvantage that there are no regular arrangements for providing the arbitrators with legal advice or assistance or for co-ordinating their decisions. But the whole basis of the code which they have to administer has been radically changed by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which introduced the conception of existing use value, and with it a number of very complex provisions which may often, in particular cases, raise questions of the most acute legal difficulty.
  These legal questions may arise in relation to compensation for compulsory acquisition of land and in adjustments of claims against the £300,000,000 provided under the Act for loss of development value, and a number of other matters. It is much better, and probably cheaper for both parties, if questions of this kind can be considered in the first instance by a legally qualified Tribunal, instead of by a surveyor, from whom an authoritative view of the law can hardly be expected. Much the same position arose in relation to valuations for war damage purposes, and in 1945 Parliament decided to set up
  1008
  a special tribunal for that purpose, known as the War Damage Valuation Appeals Panel—I forget whether I or the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, set it up. It was a Panel which consisted partly of lawyers and partly of surveyors. That arrangement has worked very well and the Bill follows it closely. The official arbitrators are not the only authorities who have to determine disputes on land valuation. There are the Referees appointed under the Finance Act of 1910 to consider valuations for estate duty purposes. As I have said, there is the War Damage Valuation Appeals Panel; and there are a number of others.
  What the proposal amounts to, therefore, is this. We propose to set up a Lands Tribunal consisting both of surveyors and of lawyers, under a legal President of high standing. The members are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Tribunal will exercise the whole of the existing jurisdiction of the official arbitrators and of the Estate Duty Referees; and in Clause 4 there is power by Order in Council to transfer the jurisdiction of other authorities from time to time. Our aim is to ensure that in all these interrelated matters a single and consistent jurisdiction is provided. We should, I feel sure, attach the greatest importance to keeping the procedure as simple as possible. The jurisdiction of the official arbitrators arises under a large number of Statutes, and covers an extraordinarily wide range. Some of the matters are quite trivial, but some, of course, are important. We do not want to face claimants with the necessity of going before a formidable legal body with minor disputes of the kind which have hitherto been heard, quite informally and cheaply, by the arbitrators. The Bill, therefore, provides for complete elasticity in the constitution of the Tribunal. The President of the Tribunal will have to decide how each case is to be heard. If there should be an important legal question, he will probably sit himself, with one or more of his colleagues; but a minor valuation dispute, raising no legal points, will be assigned to a surveyor sitting alone, as at present. The present powers of the official arbitrators to tax costs and disallow the cost of counsel are preserved to the Tribunal.
  I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any technical details. We must, if necessary, go through them on

  1009
  the Committee stage. I will run briefly through the main Clauses. Clause 1 constitutes the Tribunal and transfers to it the jurisdiction of the official arbitrators and the Estate Duty Referees. Clause 2 deals with the appointment and remuneration of the members of the Tribunal and their officers. We mean to do our best to secure the services of first-class men, both from the legal and from the surveyors' profession, and we have taken power for the first time to pay pensions. I suspect that I am not the first Lord Chancellor, and shah by no means be the last, to be asked to provide first-rate practitioners of great experience and eminence, and yet to be told that I may pay them only a wholly inadequate salary. But, at any rate, this Bill sets a useful precedent.
  Clause 3 deals with the procedure of the Tribunal, including its varying constitution for different cases, on the lines I have explained. It empowers the Lord Chancellor to make procedural rules, and it enables points of law to be taken, if necessary, right up to the House of Lords. This change was recommended by the Uthwatt Committee, and the legislation passed since then has strengthened the case for it. Under the present law the arbitrator states a case to the High Court, whose decision is final. When we drafted the Bill, we provided for appeals to go from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and thence to the House of Lords. On reflection, we thought that four stages would be unnecessary, and it was on the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice that we amended the Bill so that stated cases will go from the Tribunal straight to the Court of Appeal and thence, by leave, to the House of Lords.
  Clause 4 enables the functions of any other statutory tribunal dealing with the same sort of subject matter to be transferred by Order in Council to the Lands Tribunal, but it specifically forbids the transfer of any of the functions of a court of law. The remaining clauses deal with minor and procedural matters; and Clause 10, as your Lordships will see, provides for the Bill to come into operation on an appointed day. This is because it cannot begin to work until I have had time to appoint the Tribunal and make rules under the powers conferred by the Bill. We mean to make the necessary preparations in good time,
  1010
  however, and to bring the measure into force as soon as possible after the Royal Assent—and, in particular, in time for the Tribunal to be in the saddle when disputes about claims against the £300,000,000 begin to come forward. Your Lordships will remember that these claims have to be submitted to the Central Land Board not later than June 30 next.
  I ought to say a special word about Scotland. There will be a separate Lands Tribunal for Scotland, where the Lord President of the Court of Session will be both the appointing authority and also the rule-making authority, and the Secretary of State will pay the salaries and expenses of the Tribunal. There is power in Clause 10 to appoint a different day for bringing the Bill into operation in Scotland. The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, is not satisfied that there will be in the immediate future a sufficient volume of work to justify the establishment of the new Tribunal. Initially, therefore, it is proposed in Scotland to retain the present system of arbitration, under the Act of 1919, but to arrange for the appointment of a legal assessor to assist the arbiters in dealing with cases in which complicated legal issues arise. It is also in mind that at an early date it may become necessary to appoint a full-time arbiter in Scotland under the present law, in place of the panel of part-time arbiters and, in this way, even in advance of the coming into force of the new Bill, to secure the uniformity of practice which it is one of the aims of the Bill to bring about.
  Your Lordships will see that this Bill in no way affects the code or codes which are to be administered by the Lands Tribunal; still less has it any effect on the Land Court. It confines itself entirely to machinery and procedure. Though not spectacular, I believe that it will be useful. I believe it will produce a more compact and tidy system than the present one, and will provide a more efficient way of settling difficult points of law arising from recent legislation without disturbing the well-tried procedure under which minor matters can be disposed of quickly and cheaply. We expect that the Tribunal will be able to build up an authoritative and co-ordinated case law in land valuation, which will tend, after the initial stages,

  1011
  to reduce the number of disputes. I am confident that the Bill will be generally welcome, not only to Government Departments, local authorities and statutory undertakers but also to individual claimants. I beg to move.
  Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think I can safely assure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I will not myself do more than repeat in a sentence what is the nature of the Bill. As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has explained to us, this is a Bill primarily concerned with creating a new Tribunal, but the principles upon which the Tribunal are to act and the rules which must be observed in reaching a figure of valuation are not in the least altered. There is only one regret which I feel, and it is that the Bill does not go further than its present text provides. This is in connection with the admittedly very complicated subjects dealt with in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. In that Act there are two sections to which I would refer in a sentence or two. One is Section 60 and the other is Section 70.
  Section 60 is the section which provides for dealing with the claims, which must be put forward very shortly now, for a share of this global sum of £300,000,000 which is to be scrambled for. The provision in the Act of 1947 was that the claims should be dealt with by the Central Land Board, and this Bill, I think very properly, says: "No, not the Central Land Board, but this new Lands Tribunal." That, your Lordships will find, is the provision in Clause 1, subsection (3), paragraph (d), at the middle of page 2:
  "any dispute arising in relation to the determination of the development values of interests in land by the Central Land Board or other authority prescribed under section sixty of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947."
  So far as that goes, I think it is very good. I think there is no appeal from the Central Land Board. They simply decide it and the decision is taken from them. But, if there is a matter as complicated as that to which the Lord
  1012
  Chancellor has just referred, it is plainly right that there should be a tribunal which contains the sort of assistance which a well selected, legally-trained mind can give when exercising a judicial function. I think that the Lord Chancellor has abundantly justified that change.
  But what is a little surprising to me is that, when one turns to Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act, one finds there a provision which in some respects seems in the same line of country, but in which there is no transfer at all to this new and highly qualified Tribunal. Section 70 is concerned, not with the distribution of the £300,000,000, but with the determination of the development charge. Section 60 deals with the loss of development value; Section 70 deals with the determination of development charge. I do not profess to speak on this subject with anything like the close knowledge of it which some members of this House have, but I have a strong impression that, since this Act was passed, many people have been greatly surprised, and some of them quite horrified, at the development charge put upon them under Section 70. That is a decision which is made, and is to continue to be made, by this very Central Land Board which is disestablished as regards Section 60, but is to remain in full force and vigour in Section 70.
  After all, what is the development charge? If I understand it rightly, it is measured by contrasting the benefit of ownership of land with planning permission, with the benefit of similar land in similar ownership without planning permission. The Lord Chancellor is abundantly justified in saying that the Town and Country Planning Act contains some very complicated conundrums. I should have thought there was hardly any conundrum more difficult than that, but I have no doubt everybody tries to answer it fairly. I should have thought that there were people who felt rather strongly that that also was a matter which could properly, without any change as to the proper way of doing it, be transferred to this highly qualified body which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack commends to us and which I am certain will be selected by him and by all concerned with the greatest skill and impartiality. But as things are, if I

  1013
  follow them rightly, you create this new Lands Tribunal in order to deal more efficiently and with greater wisdom and accuracy with the question, "How much of that £300,000,000 am I going to get?"; but you refuse to allow it to deal with at least as complicated and difficult a question—namely, the determination of development charge. I do not mention this point with any idea of opposing a Second Reading, but I hope I may be excused, even at this hour, for pointing to it as a consideration which some of us might reflect upon between now and Committee stage.
  I am glad to think that that is all I have to say this afternoon. We started with the simple conundrum: What is a citizen of Eire? Passing from that very easy question, we moved on to the question: What are the privileges of consuls in international law? At last I have got as far as Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. In my concluding sentence to your Lordships, I have to confess that I think that is the most difficult question of the three.
  5.57 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, as a mere layman, I rise with great trepidation indeed to put two Scottish points. The first relates to the Land Court, and the second to the position of sheriffs in Scotland. I do not propose to follow them up at this stage, because the proper time to do so is in Committee. If I may mention them now, however, it will give the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor time to look into them, if he so wishes. The Lord Chancellor has stated that the position of the Scottish Land Court will not be affected, but I confess that I have some doubt about the wording of Clause 1. I propose, before the Committee stage, to put down an Amendment at the end of subsection (3) of Clause 1, in order to make it quite plain that the functions of the Land Court will not be interfered with. It may well be that that Amendment will be unnecessary, but I should like to have it further discussed at the appropriate time. As your Lordships are aware, in the crofting counties in the North of Scotland, the Scottish Land Court has a unique position, and questions between landowners and crofters are settled by this Court, with acceptance to both parties. Naturally, we are anxious that
  1014
  the work of the Land Court should not in any way be infringed.
  My second point relates to the sheriffs. It is the practice in Scotland, in a large number of Private Acts, for the parties deliberately to select the sheriff to decide such disputes. It seems to me that under Clause 4 it would be possible for the sheriff to be set aside, or rather for the adoption of the new type of arbitration to be made compulsory. Here again, I would follow the matter up in Committee rather than now, but I would ask if it will still be possible to select the sheriff for the form of arbitration which arises under any Private Acts. Those are the only points I wish to raise, and I hope that the passage of the Bill will be facilitated.
  6.0 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, as representing the owners of agricultural land perhaps I may be allowed to offer a warm welcome to this Bill. I am a little inquisitive, bearing in mind the wide range of subjects that are likely to come under the consideration of the Tribunal, as to how many persons it is contemplated to appoint to the Tribunal, because it seems to me that the various appointees may have to be sitting in various parts of the country for quite a considerable time and in very considerable numbers. But upon that point no doubt the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has to some extent already made up his mind.
  I could not help feeling a little amused when my noble and learned friend Lord Simon asked, rather significantly, "What is the development charge?" I may say that those who are interested in agricultural land are very anxious to have a reply to that question. I hope that at no distant date we may be given some clearer idea as to what the development charge is, and, having had it defined so far as possible, to obtain a rough idea as to the true value of land as a subject of negotiation between vendor and purchaser at the present time.
  If I may venture to say so, we in this country are in a very nebulous mental condition as to what is the value of anything—more particularly in regard to the value of real property. It is quite obvious that until there is greater clarity of governmental view and decision upon this subject, the actual land transactions will be considerably held up for an indefinite

  1015
  time. For my part, I welcome especially the last words which fell from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when he said it was hoped to build up an authoritative case law on land valuation. That is very badly needed. What is disturbing some of us at the present time is the quite different bases of assessment adopted both by district valuers and others acting on behalf of county councils and other public bodies within a county and also as between different counties. It is extremely difficult for some of us who seek to sell land for public or other purposes to find, when we confess that we are prepared to leave the matter of valuation to the district valuer or other Government valuer, that the valuations made are difficult to justify and apparently lack any sound basis, at any rate for purposes of comparison.
  Speaking, if I may, as one who has had to do with land and with the ownership of land for certainly more than half a century, I very much welcome Clause 4. It seems to adumbrate what is described as uniformity of decision in regard to the valuation of land and, further, the economic use of the services of those who have experience in the valuation of land. Those who have had to employ valuers in days gone by—many of them relatively poor people—have often found themselves having to pay what appears to them to be an unsatisfactory fee, considering the value of the land, to those who are expert in the matter of valuation. With those few words I am glad to give a warm welcome to the Second Reading of this Bill, reserving to myself the possibility of studying carefully any Amendments that may be proposed.
  6.5 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to intervene for only one moment, to say how very much I welcome the intervention of the two noble Lords opposite on the points which they have raised, and I look forward with great interest to hearing from the Lord Chancellor the reason why this Tribunal should not have jurisdiction in respect of Section 70, as well as Section 60, of the Town and Country Planning Act. At first sight it would appear to be a great advantage if that jurisdiction could be given to the Tribunal. I say that for
  1016
  this reason: that, since the Town and Country Planning Act began to come into operation there have come to my notice cases where a development charge has been fixed in respect of certain sites in London—I am thinking in particular of some very important bombed sites which are now available for redevelopment; and of course the whole question of redevelopment is bound up with what development charge is to be levied.
  In the cases I have in mind, the development charge has been fixed, as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has said, by the district valuer—and I believe there is no appeal from the decision of the district valuer. The district valuer has refused to explain the basis on which he arrived at his charge. That seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory position, and if the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount opposite could be adopted—namely, that jurisdiction over development charges should also be transferred to this new Tribunal—it would seem an admirable proposal. Of course, it also fits in extremely well with the point made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe on the question of uniformity of decision. There can be no more important field in which uniformity of decision is desirable than in fixing these development charges, particularly on these tremendously valuable sites that are now available for redevelopment in the City of London and elsewhere.
  6.8 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the cordial welcome which you have given to this Bill. With regard to certain of the points, and particularly those relating to Scotland, I will, if I may, look into them and be prepared to discuss them with the noble Lord before we get to the Committee stage and, of course, if necessary, on Committee stage. As to the Scottish point about the valuation of land, ordinarily I like notice of such questions, and I am glad that the noble Lord has given it to me. With regard to the point raised about Sections 60 and 70, I will of course convey to my colleagues the opinions expressed by your Lordships, but I am bound to make it plain that I have little doubt as to what the answer I shall get will be.
  This Bill is not designed to give the right to an appeal where there is no

  1017
  appeal to-day. Your Lordships will remember that when we discussed the Town and Country Planning Bill (upon which I am afraid I had a good deal to say), one of the topics upon which we had a keen controversy was whether there should be a right of appeal in regard to the fixation of the development charge. You will remember that this House divided on that question, and your Lordships inserted an Amendment granting such an appeal. You will also remember that in another place they did not like our Amendment and they struck it out, and restored the position to one where there was no appeal, and that this House then assented to that alteration. That was one of the great political battles on the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 which stand out in my memory. It would, indeed, be rash of me to introduce this little Bill to your Lordships if it were going to rip up all that controversy and re-open again the whole question as to whether or not there should be an appeal from the fixation of the development charge. So, as I have said, I will convey to my colleagues the opinions which your Lordships have expressed, but I am bound to say that I do not think it is in the least likely that the battle which we fought in 1947 will be conceded at this stage.
  I am afraid I have not looked at the Act but I have a pretty fair memory of it, and Section 60, if I remember rightly, dealt with the Fund of £300,000,000. So far as Section 60 is concerned, I think I am correct in saying that the assessment was made by the Central Land Board, and if there were a dispute with regard to the assessment, it went, under Section 60, to the Official Arbitrator. Under this Bill, the Central Land Board will still assess, but a dispute, if dispute there be, instead of going to the Official Arbitrator goes to this Tribunal. That is the only difference which is made there, and that, I think, is right and usual.
  I am grateful to your Lordships for what you have said, and I wish I could say something definite regarding the personnel of these Tribunals. I was considering this very morning what I could say about the number of people whom I shall have to appoint. But I would rather not say anything on that subject at the present moment. If I did so, I think it would be a mere guess. I remember this
  1018
  trouble arising with regard to War Damage appeals. Finally, I managed to keep to a very small number of people. I had thought at one time that I should have to appoint a vast army of people up and down the country to deal with it, but, lo and behold! all the cases seemed to get settled, there was very little to do, and so no great number of people was required. I hope I shall have the same sort of experience in this connection, but I think that solvitur ambulando is the answer which I must give at the present time. I shall certainly keep the numbers down so far as I possibly can, so that I may secure homogeneity and uniformity of decision. But, of course, I cannot have the lieges kept waiting interminably to have their rights adjusted, just because have not enough eminent people to do the work. I am afraid that, at the present moment, I cannot further answer this question, or, shall I say, "rise to the fly" which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, threw over me. As I have said, I am grateful for the assistance which your Lordships have given me. And may I hope that we shall come fairly soon to the Committee stage of this Bill?
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
  6.14 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BELL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  JURIES BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.