Lords Sitting of 2 June 1949

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING
  3.7 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from the King signed with his own hand. The Message is as follows:
  "I have received your Address recommending Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., late Clerk of the Parliaments, to my Royal Grace and Bounty, and I will give directions accordingly."

  MARRIAGE BILL [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Viscount Jowitt): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the solemnisation and registration of marriages in England with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to justices of the peace (including stipendiary magistrates), justices' clerks and the administrative and financial arrangements for magistrates' courts, to provide for paying travelling and lodging allowances to members of probation committees and
  1368
  case committees, and for enabling probation committees to hold land, to authorise the appointment of interim clerks of the peace in Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to reconstitute the General Nursing Council for Scotland, and otherwise to amend the Nurses (Scotland) Acts, 1919 and 1945, and to make further provision with respect to the training of nurses for the sick. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  IRELAND BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with on Tuesday the 21st instant for the purpose of giving precedence to the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments to the Lands Tribunal Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
  3.11 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Third Reading to this Bill, I do not think it necessary for me to inflict many words upon you. But I trust that it will not be thought presumptuous of me if I say that in my opinion this Bill—as is the case with all Bills of this description—will leave your Lordships' House as a thoroughly workmanlike document and something better than it was when it was introduced.
  On the conclusion of the Report stage the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, were kind enough to pass some comment upon the way in which I had handled this Bill in your Lordships' House. If I may take their all too generous words to mean that I had discharged my duties to your Lordships' House in a manner which was acceptable to your Lordships, that knowledge is my reward. But I could not have done that, and this Bill would not have taken the form which it has, had it not been for the help which we on this side of the House have received at every stage from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. We are deeply indebted to them.
  May I also express our thanks to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack who, as Lord Simon said during the Report stage, is at all times only too willing to give us the benefit of his learning and advice; and we greatly benefit thereby. May I, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, also thank the President and Council of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents for their help and assistance not only in the preparation of this Bill but through all its stages? With those words I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  3.14 p.m.
  LORD REID: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to raise a point of Scottish legal procedure. I think perhaps a word of explanation is due to
  1370
  your Lordships of why I should raise it at this late stage of the proceedings in this House. I have reason to believe that the point I have in mind has been receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is a matter of some complexity, and I had hoped that perhaps an Amendment on the point would be forthcoming in the course of the proceedings in your Lordships' House. I make no complaint that such is not the case, because I readily agree that it is better, if there is to be an Amendment, that it should be well thought out, even at the cost of sonic delay. I do not ask to-day for any statement in precise terms, but I am hopeful that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may be able to make a favourable statement in general terms which may lead up to an Amendment in the course of the passage of this Bill through another place. In the hope that such a statement will be forthcoming, I shall endeavour to be brief. I shall omit any reference to minor points, and I hope that I may not be criticised for having dealt unduly shortly with such points as I propose to mention.
  When one turns to Clause 47 of the Bill, one finds in subsection (1) that there is introduced what I think is a new form of appeal. In all cases appeal is to the Court of Appeal. It is familiar to your Lordships that that is purely an English court, with no jurisdiction in Scottish matters I wish to ask the Government whether they cannot introduce an Amendment whereby an appeal at this stage may be to the appropriate Scottish Court—the Court of Session. The Court of Session have always had a considerable jurisdiction in patent cases. That is recognised, of course, in the principal Act. Although we in Scotland cannot claim quite so much experience of patent matters as the courts down here, I think I may say that the decisions of the Scottish courts have always been recognised as decisions of high authority. I think I may also say that, so far as litigants are concerned, the procedure in Scotland has always been regarded as tolerably satisfactory. Perhaps I can say that with the more assurance because I have never had the good fortune to be engaged in a patent action while practising at the Scottish Bar, so I may be able to take an unprejudiced view of our procedure. It is not easy to devise an appropriate Amendment, because it is

  1371
  difficult in this matter to say what is a Scottish case and what is an English case, but I think that probably an appropriate Amendment could be devised. I do not propose to offer any suggestion as to the precise method of delimitation, because I feel sure that if the principle is accepted, the Government will discover a good way of carrying it out. I am sure we should all prefer an Amendment which would work well in practice, rather than one which would work well only in theory or on paper.
  I would venture to raise two other matters at the same time. If there is to be a separation between Scottish and English cases at that stage, might it not take place at an earlier stage also? I agree that this is a matter which might well have been raised in Parliament during the passage of earlier Bills which have dealt with this subject, and in a sense I am asking that Parliament should go back upon earlier decisions. But perhaps I shall not be regarded as controversial if I say that Scottish affairs have not always received the detailed attention, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, which they have been receiving in more recent times. Therefore, perhaps one might be entitled to ask that previous decisions be reviewed. The proceedings to which I refer are those before the comptroller and before the Appeal Tribunal. With regard to proceedings before the comptroller, I recognise that this is primarily a matter of meeting the convenience of all concerned, and I would not ask for any rigid Amendment that would neglect that essential factor. But, making all allowances for that, I think there is room in appropriate cases for proceedings in Scotland by the comptroller. Again, if that principle is accepted, I think something can be devised which will give satisfaction and the least inconvenience in practice.
  The Appeal Tribunal, of course, unlike the Court of Appeal, is in theory a United Kingdom Tribunal, and therefore there is not the same theoretical objection to Scottish cases being heard by the Appeal Tribunal. But the Tribunal sit in England, and where the parties are Scottish I think there is a strong case to be made for an Appeal Tribunal hearing appeals in Scotland. I do not base that view primarily on sentiment—
  1372
  although sentiment is a matter which ought to receive due consideration when we are dealing with the allocation of judicial work between the two countries. I base my view primarily on the questions of expense and convenience: where all the parties are substantially interested in Scotland, it will be cheaper and more convenient to them if they can appear before a Scottish Tribunal, rather than have to come down here. I would add that there is obviously no insuperable objection to such a course, because, in a limited way, the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 47 provides for this very separation. What would be desirable, I think, is a rather broader separation than is there provided.
  There are one or two other matters of a minor character with regard to which I will not detain your Lordships. I think I have said enough to raise the main issues, and if these points can be met by Amendments I feel sure that they will meet with considerable gratification, and will be of great assistance to the administration of justice in Scotland.
  3.22 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, as I have taken some little interest in this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I think what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has suggested is very convenient. I had heard that this question of Scotland's position was to be raised, but it seemed to me that it would be just as well, though the matter was mentioned in your Lordships' House at this stage, that consideration of what should be done to amend one or two clauses of the Bill in order to meet this claim should be reserved for the other place; there, no doubt, the Lord Advocate and others who know the subject will have something to say. It is really quite a limited point. Perhaps I may say, just for clearness, that there are three ways in which a Scottish interest might arise. An ordinary patent case, brought between a patentee and somebody who he alleges is infringing his patent, can today be brought as well in Scotland as in England; it is merely a question of where the proceedings are started. All that is already provided for. Inasmuch as Scottish people are both very inventive and sometimes very argumentative—I will not say very litigious—it follows that there is a certain amount of work of that sort which is discharged now

  1373
  by the Scottish courts, and which will continue to be so discharged. That sort of case, therefore, raises no difficulty at all.
  There is then a case under Clause 47 of this Bill, owing to the fact that it contains a new provision. Up to the present, though the comptroller decided these matters in the first place, with an appeal from the comptroller to the Appeal Tribunal, there was not a provision for a final appeal, if necessary to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is, of course, an English institution. I must say that I entirely sympathise with the view that in proper cases there ought to be provision for an appeal to the corresponding Court of. Session in Scotland. It will not be easy to determine in which of the two compartments a particular appeal is to fall, because under Clause 47 the matter begins by a proceeding before the comptroller, who is the comptroller for England and Scotland and who therefore, quite naturally, may be regarded as administering the law on behalf of both countries.
  There is one other point that arises under Clause 39 of the Bill, which is a clause of considerable interest to people who do not care much about the technicalities of patents. That clause deals with the disputes which sometimes arise between an employer and a person whom he has employed when it is the employed person who has made the invention. Everybody will sympathise with the view that, in a case like that, where the workman is responsible for the invention, though he is in the service of the employer, it is right to see, if necessary by judicial proceedings, what the workman's remuneration should be. That, I think, is already a matter which in certain cases can be decided by going ultimately to a Scottish Tribunal. In the first place, the comptroller considers it, and then, as my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, has said, if either party is not satisfied with what the comptroller decides in such a matter, Clause 47 provides that
  "… an appeal … where the parties to the dispute are resident in Scotland shall, at the request of any of the parties, lie to the Court of Session instead of to the Tribunal."
  Therefore, the matter is in quite a small compass. However, it is important, and I think my noble friend opposite will agree that it should be left to be dealt with in another place. We shall then have an opportunity of considering the Amend
  1374
  ment made, and I do not anticipate that there will be any acute controversy about it.
  That leads me to make the last of the many observations I have made on this Bill—and it is a pleasant one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for what he so kindly said about my colleagues and myself on this Bench who have done what we can to contribute to improving this Bill. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that in its present state—I think, on the whole, a very satisfactory state—the Bill is an admirable example of what this House can do for the benefit of the public. Under existing conditions it is very difficult to think that the other place could really have discharged this particular detailed piece of work. I know that sometimes it has appeared to noble Lords who have been listening to be a very technical matter, and certainly it requires rather close fitting of clause to clause. But it is also a very important matter, because we are dealing here with the rights of people who are entitled to have their inventive capacity and knowledge fairly And suitably recognised and rewarded. It is a duty of Parliament to do what is right for the man who has a fair claim. I think that as a result of our long discussions on this matter we have made that provision in a far more satisfactory way.
  The Amendments made to this Bill so far must amount to some thirty or forty in number and many of them have come from suggestions put to the Government. I must end by acknowledging once again that the spirit in which those suggestions have been received, the discretion with which they have been further considered, and in proper cases adopted, redounds very much indeed to the credit of the noble Lord who has been in charge of this Bill. We one and all are greatly obliged to him.
  3.29 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for his comments. With regard to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, we are grateful to him for having put his observations before us. As the matter of the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts under this Bill is at the present time receiving the close attention of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack,

  1375
  the Law Officers of the Crown, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Patent Office, I cannot in any way anticipate what the result will be, or what action will follow upon them. I trust that the noble and learned Lord will be content with the fact that they are receiving every consideration. I will undertake to convey his observations to the appropriate quarters.
  On Question, Bill read 3a; King's consent signified, an Amendment (Privilege) made, and Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  3.30 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think it will be generally agreed that we have made a great many improvements in this Bill. I am glad to think that, in the majority of clauses, they have been made by general agreement. On this side of the House we should certainly adhere very strongly to the view that the only matter on which we differed—which was the Amendment to Clause 2—was a wise and sound Amendment. I must take this opportunity of reverting for a moment or two to the matters which were raised on the Amendment to Clause 2. Your Lordships will remember that the Amendment we made was that the Coal Board should not have the power to engage in the export trade in coal which was denied to them under the principal Act—and deliberately denied by Parliament—without a Resolution by Parliament giving them the power so to do.
  In the course of that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, I am sure on instructions, if I may so phrase it, and relying upon those instructions, made what was a very serious attack upon the British coal exporters. I quote from Column 615 of the proceedings of your Lordships'
  1376
  House in Committee, when he said this of the Coal Board:
  "They are asked to run an industry in the interests of the country and they find British exporters trying to oust them from a market which they have had for a number of years."
  Then, after some intervention from a noble Lord on this side of the House, he went on to say:
  "That market was, at that time, in the hands of the National Coal Board. British exporters then came along and robbed the National Coal Board of their market."
  The words, "robbed the National Coal Board of their market," are pretty strong language.
  Now the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, not unnaturally, was challenged from many sides to justify this charge, and he said that what he alleged had happened occurred over exports to Eire—I suppose I should now say the Republic of Ireland. He said:
  "What happened in a country very near here was that British coal was being sold. A British exporter offered Polish coal in preference to British coal and the Polish coal was bought and the British coal left unsold."
  On being asked whether there was British coal of the same quality and price which the Irish purchaser required and was prepared to pay, Lord Macdonald claimed—I am sure on instructions—that British coal was available of comparable quality and price. Frankly, I was taken a little by surprise—if I may use Dr. Johnson's language, I was both surprised and amazed—at that statement, because only three days earlier, in another place, the Minister of Fuel and Power had been asked about these deliveries of Polish coal to Southern Ireland, and he said this:
  "I am not aware of any lack of co-ordination. At any rate, so long as we can sell all the coal we can afford to export I do not think we need grumble very much."
  Since the debate I have made very careful inquiries, and the facts as stated to me by the coal exporters are as follows. There is in force an inter-governmental agreement between the Government of Eire and His Majesty's Government here, which provides that 1,570,000 tons of coal will be supplied in the current year. I am informed that in the first three months of this year deliveries were 80,000 tons short, and the bulk of this deficiency was in domestic and industrial coal. More than that, what the Irish wanted was large coal, and that was coal of a quality which

  1377
  the Coal Board could not supply. The Irish importers, therefore—the initiative came from Ireland—sought offers of I Polish coal from British exporters, though, of course, if they had been so minded, the Irish importers could quite well have gone direct to the Poles and bought the coal from them. Now the British merchants who had been so approached, being unable to get coal of the quality which the purchaser demanded, supplied Polish coal; just as, with the full knowledge of the Coal Board, these merchants are to-day selling American coal in France, Italy and Scandinavia, where British coal is not available. They are doing that with the full knowledge and approval of the Coal Board. Of course, that is right, because in that way they are holding these markets and connections and, incidentally, are earning dollars for this country.
  Now what is sinister, shocking or wicked about this story when you get the true facts? Is not the right conclusion that the merchants have, in fact, performed a very useful service? What would have happened if the British merchants had refused to supply Polish coal to Ireland or American coal to Europe? Surely this would inevitably have happened: their customers would have gone to foreign merchants, and this country would not only have lost the commission and possibly the freight, but, what is very much more important, this country would have lost valuable and established connections. It is supremely important that British merchants should hold these connections, because if, as we hope, more British coal becomes available for export in the future, then the British firms will be able to switch over to British coal. In that way we shall keep the world-wide merchanting organisation and connections which have built up and maintained our coal exports in the past. On these facts, which I give to the House on the authority of the coal exporters of this country, I submit to your Lordships that the decision which you took upon this clause and the wisdom of that decision is, in fact, confirmed and reinforced.
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I rise to associate myself with everything the noble Viscount who has just sat down has said in regard to the imputations
  1378
  made against British coal exporters. With regard to the Amendment on Clause 2, I would say, in the light of debates which are likely to take place in your Lordships' House in the near future, that the wisdom of the proviso which was inserted seems to be abundantly clear. It is a very necessary proviso, and one which I hope will find a place in any similar, and possibly regrettable, Bills which may be introduced hereafter. We on this side do not want to see His Majesty's Government engaged in miscellaneous trade activities on the Continent and overseas in such a way as to jeopardise our existing position. Otherwise I am happy to associate myself with what has been said about the number of Amendments made in this Bill by agreement, consistently with the tradition which has long prevailed in this House.
  3.41 p.m.
  THE EARL on CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I intervene in support of what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said? I have just come from Cork, and there was a ship there unloading Polish coal. I was having lunch with two coal importers and I asked about these ships. My friends told me the same story as the noble Viscount. These people said that the Polish coal they were getting was of better quality than that which they would have received under the same description if they had bought British coal—and they got it at a lower price.
  3.42 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in associating myself with my noble leader in this matter, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, really realises the seriousness of the allegation he was making. I do not believe the Labour Party have ever understood the rôle of the merchant. If they had, the noble Lord would have realised what a terrible thing he was saying about people who had been the historical prop of our economy. I would add that if any Government were to be tempted to act under Clause 2 and to go in for bunkering overseas, they would certainly have to offer the district they wanted to serve the best value for money, whether that district were South Wales, Poland or China, since none of these countries is likely to allow bunkering and merchanting

  1379
  to operate to its own disadvantage in its own territories.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I have discovered little by little how much this House differs from another place. In another place on Third Reading we could not have had this debate on something which is not in the Bill. It is evident we can do things here which cannot be done in another place. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, would have your Lordships believe that I made some serious attack on exporters during the Committee stage of the proceedings. The noble Viscount knows well that I resisted the temptation to make an attack.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I quoted the noble Lord's words. If he said that those words about "robbing" were not intended to be an attack, I am delighted to hear him say so.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I say that I resisted being tempted by the interruptions of noble Lords to make an attack. I stated a fact, which the noble Viscount admits, that Polish coal was sold by British exporters in a market in which British coal had been sold previously. It may be there were circumstances justifying that sale; I never questioned that during my remarks. What I suggested was that because exporters were able to sell Polish coal in preference to British coal, that was one reason—and only one of the reasons—why the Government felt that the Coal Board ought to be entrusted with the same powers that owners in the coal industry had prior to nationalisation. I want to repeat here that the Government stand on that issue. They still believe that the Coal Board should be entrusted with the same powers regarding the sale of coal as were enjoyed and used by coal owners prior to nationalisation. They see no reason why the powers of the Coal Board should be limited as compared with the power of the coal owners. The exporters were in the main the coal owners: there is an attempt sometimes to differentiate. What I said was that the sale of this coal had caused the Coal Board to think, and to make representations to the Government. The coal exporters may on some occasions sell in their own interests, and it may be in their own interests upon occasions to push other coal than British coal.
  1380
  I want to suggest to the noble Viscount that the remarks I made were not intended as an attack. I instanced one single sale of coal in a market in which British coal had been sold previously, but in which Polish coal is now being sold. This was one small case I instanced which justified asking for the Coal Board to be entrusted with the same exporting powers as the coal owners had prior to nationalisation. I consider this Amendment to be a barren Amendment and one which must be resisted; and I sincerely hope it will be resisted in another place. I say frankly that if you ask the Coal Board to exercise their powers in the interests of this country, you must give the Coal Board that power. If you withhold the power, they will not be able to achieve their object. I say again that my remarks were not intended as an attack on the coal exporters. They were made only to give an instance which was brought to my attention by the Coal Board of how their powers were apparently to be limited, to such a point that they would not be able to discharge the duties laid upon them by Parliament.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE: BRITISH DELEGATION TO CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY
  3.47 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene to read a short Statement on a matter of importance that the Prime Minister is now making in the other place. It is as follows:
  "The House will recollect that on May 5, in answer to a Question, my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council said that the British representation to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe would consist of members of one or other House of Parliament, and would include members of His Majesty's Opposition. I am now able to announce the names of the members of this delegation. The representatives from the Government Benches are: my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council; my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury; and the honourable Members for Broxstowe;

  1381
  Buckingham; Coventry West; Lanark North; Hulme; Hull North-West; Bilston, and Llandaff and Barry. The representatives of His Majesty's Opposition are: the right honourable gentleman the Member for Woodford; the right honourable gentleman the Member for Bromley; the right honourable and learned gentleman the Member for Liverpool (West Derby); the honourable Members for Aberdeen East and Chippenham; and the honourable and gallant gentleman the Member for Londonderry. The remaining member of the delegation, who is not a Member of either the Government or Conservative Opposition Parties, will be from another place. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, has accepted my invitation to join the delegation in this capacity.
  "These appointments are for the first session of the Assembly which, it is expected, will be held in Strasbourg at a date yet to be fixed in August. According to the Statute of the Council of Europe it will be in order to appoint substitutes for representatives, who may sit, speak and vote in their places. Invitations have been extended to certain honourable Members to act in this capacity should their services be required, although it is not expected that it will be necessary for all of them to attend the session of the Assembly."
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, arising out of that statement, may I ask the noble Viscount one question? It is this. In what capacity, and upon whose nomination is my noble friend Lord Layton included in the delegation?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am afraid I should require notice of that question, but I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Layton, was invited because of his eminent services in this connection and the great industry he has displayed.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, although I ant most reluctant to raise controversial matters on any statement connected with a subject of this kind, the position is such that it will be necessary for me to call your Lordships' attention to one or two matters. In view of the imminence of the Royal Commission, perhaps it would be more convenient to do so after that has taken place.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON; Perhaps it would be better done on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I can do it quite shortly if it is convenient that it should be done now.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think we ought first to finish debating the Coal Industry Bill. We are in the middle of the discussion on that Bill.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening in the debate, but it is usual to try to make statements of this kind simultaneously in the two Houses. Otherwise, I am exceedingly sorry to have done so.

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Debate resumed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may we now return to coal for a moment? I want to make it quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and to the Government that we are making no personal accusations against him, or suggesting that he was wittingly or intentionally misleading the House. I am sure that nothing is further from our minds than that. But undoubtedly there was a suggestion in his speech that the Coal Board could have provided this coal which was needed in Ireland, and that the private exporter, instead of using the facilities of the Coal Board, went elsewhere. I think that is clear from a remark which the noble Lord made (Column 618 of Hansard):
  "Let us be quite clear on this matter. Sometimes we may accept inferior coal because of differentiations of price, as the noble Lord suggests. What happened in a country very near here was that British coal was being sold. A British exporter offered Polish coal in preference to British coal, and the Polish coal was bought and the British coal"—
  which was there—
  "left unsold."
  Then the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked:
  "Was ours available?"
  and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said:
  "Our coal was available, the same kind of coal as they had been receiving for years."
  What the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said this afternoon, after very careful inquiry, is that in the first three months of this year deliveries of

  1383
  British coal were 80,000 tons short, and the bulk of this deficiency was in domestic and industrial coal. The Irish wanted large coal, which the National Coal Board could not supply. It is not a question of making accusations against anyone, but there is a complete difference of fact over that. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said the coal was available; the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that it was not available, which makes a very considerable difference to the situation. I think we should all agree that if British coal had been available in sufficient quantities, and at a price which the buyer was willing to pay, obviously the coal exporter ought to have provided British coal. We are all agreed about that. But, supposing that he could not provide the type of coal which the buyer wanted at the price which the buyer wished to pay, then I think he was perfectly right to get where he could the type of commodity which was required. If he had not done that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has already said, the Irish would have gone straight to the Poles and we should have lost that market.
  I do not want to rouse any heat over this matter, but I think it ought to be cleared up. I hope that in future it may be possible for the noble Lord opposite to make further inquiries to make certain that the facts that he states on his information are correct; otherwise a very large part of his argument against this Amendment falls to the ground.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, may I just say one sentence? I am advised that, had the Coal Board possessed the powers which were in Clause 2 and which were taken out, this sale to which I referred would not have taken place.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely that implies that coal of the quality and price which the Irish demanded was available?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: It was.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then it is a difference on fact, for we all speak on instructions.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as regards his information, no doubt the
  1384
  noble Lord has been instructed by his Department. As the House will know, I never make a statement here without having verified it to the best of my ability. Every statement that I have made here to-day has been certified to me by the British coal exporters. Their statement is plainly this: that they could not get the coal, the large coal, of the quality which Ireland wanted from the Coal Board, and it was the Irish who said to them: "We cannot get this coal. Therefore, we ask you, can you supply Polish coal?" I can say no more than that it is a most extraordinary thing if the Coal Board had the large coal available. Every merchant being only too anxious to buy British coal, why did not the Coal Board supply that coal to the merchants?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, either I was misinformed, or the noble Viscount was misinformed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we cannot go on with a Third Reading debate as though it were a Committee stage. Even in this House that would not be permissible. I do not think that we can take this matter any further to-day, but I am of the opinion that it must be cleared up. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, perhaps over the Whitsun Recess, will make inquiries. We might put down a Question which would enable him to give your Lordships an informed answer.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment will go back to another place, where I think there will be an opportunity for it to be cleared up. Then, if it is desired to clear it up here, that can be done.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I trust that the procedure in this House will not prevent the continuation of the powerful exposition of the case for free trade which we have heard to-day from the Conservative Benches!
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  3.57 p.m.
  Clause 3 [Termination of certain long-term contracts transferred to Board]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to omit "in no way"

  1385
  and insert "not." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to move two small Amendments, on which we are agreed. During the debate on Report stage, the Lord Chancellor mentioned that he thought the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had made a case out for the person who was interested in both parties to the contract where that person had only a small interest of 5 per cent. This Amendment and the next, which is consequential, are intended to meet the undertaking given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I notice that there is another Amendment on the Order Paper which differs materially from mine in one word only—that is, in the word "degree" as against the word "extent." It may help the noble Viscount and induce him either not to press his Amendment or not to move it at all if I tell him that I took the trouble to consult the Oxford English Dictionary as to the difference in meaning between the words "extent" and "degree." I am now satisfied that "extent" is a better word than "degree." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 30, leave out ("in no way") and insert ("not").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the way that this matter has been finally explored to its ultimate conclusion. I think our intentions have been exactly met. Our intentions were that this clause should in no way allow the National Coal Board to terminate a contract which was of an ordinary commercial character, notwithstanding that it might cause them considerable financial loss to continue it. As our intentions have been met in that matter, we are only too pleased to see the Bill as it now stands.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 31, after ("other") insert ("to any material extent").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  4.0 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent.
  Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control),
  Ireland.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  U.S.A. VETERANS' PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
  4.15 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a Bill about which I am confident there will be no controversy. Its effect is to enable the Minister of Pensions to administer, for the benefit of certain United States ex-Service men and their dependants in the United Kingdom, pensions and other sums which are payable by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs in the United States. It deals, therefore, with the administration in this country of monies provided by the United States, under their laws, for the benefit of their ex-Service men who happen to be resident here. Under the law of the United States, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is obliged, where the dependant is a minor, or a person of unsound mind, or under any other legal disability, to pay the pension, or whatever it may be, to the dependant's legally constituted guardian or other person legally empowered so to act. In many cases, has been found that the dependants in this country who are in the categories referred to, have no legally appointed guardian to whom the sums could be paid, and it is undesirable that it should be necessary for them to have guardians appointed specially for this purpose. The Minister of Pensions has the machinery for paying pensions, and he is the obvious person to undertake this task. But, in order to enable the Americans to pay him the sums due, he must first be legally empowered to act and be enabled to accept and administer the sums as a trustee.
  Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill provide that where in the case

  1387
  of any person it is agreed between the Minister and the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs that the Minister shall administer any funds received by him, he shall hold them upon trust to pay them or apply them in the interests of the person concerned for which purpose he is given a discretion to invest the funds. The period for which such an agreement operates is known as "the period of administration by the Minister," and it will normally be during the minority of the beneficiary, if he is a minor, or during the period that the beneficiary remains of unsound mind in other cases.
  Subsection (3) of Clause 1 lays down what the Minister must do with the trust funds at the end of the period of administration. He may do one of three things. First, he may ask the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to specify a person to whom he is to transfer the funds still held in trust. He would probably do this, for instance, in the case of an infant who had left the country, because he has no power to administer pensions abroad. Secondly, the Minister may hold the funds upon trust for the person concerned. This will probably be the normal case, and would occur when an infant beneficiary came of age or the person of unsound mind recovered his sanity. Thirdly, if the beneficiary has died, the Minister may, instead of asking the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to specify a person to whom to transfer the funds, pay them to the personal representatives of the beneficiary, or where the sum does not exceed £100, pay them direct to the persons who are beneficially entitled to the deceased's estate. This subsection includes an express provision preventing any monies escheating to the Crown because it obviously would not be right for monies emanating from the United States Government to go to the Crown in this way.
  Subsection (4) of Clause 1 provides that the provisions of the Bill shall not apply in any case where there is a legal guardian, receiver or committee appointed by a court in the United Kingdom, provided that such a person is competent to receive and administer funds under the terms of his appointment. The Bill is only designed to provide a machinery for paying the American pensions in cases where, but
  1388
  for the Bill, they could not be paid at all. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the short title and interpretation. I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill is in the best interests of those concerned, and I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Bill. We think it is right that we should put the experience and machinery of our Ministry of Pensions at the disposal of the United States War Veterans' Administration for the purposes just outlined by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. It is one small return that this country can make for the many friendly acts which the United States have done on our behalf in the last few years.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I add one sentence? This is a remarkable and gratifying Bill: first, for the reason that, as the noble Lord has just said, it enables us to render to the United States a service which may be of value to them, and secondly, because it recognises in a visible form the immensely close relations that exist between this country and the United States, and the opinion which those in authority in that country have of the wisdom and integrity of our administration.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 25), Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT—DELEGATION TO CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE
  4.22 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Moved, that this House do now adjourn.—(Viscount Addison.)
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as I said in my previous intervention, I am sorry to have to take up the time of your Lordships' House on a matter which one would have hoped

  1389
  would be non-controversial. I am sorry that, because of a previous urgent engagement, my noble friend Lord Samuel is unable to be present to deal with the matter. At the outset, let me say without reservation that we rejoice at the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is to form part of the British delegation on this occasion, and that not only our delegation but the whole Assembly will have the benefit of his immense experience in this matter which he acquired as Chairman of the United Europe Movement in this country.
  The point to which I have to call attention is one of considerable moment—certainly, to us of the Liberal Party. The situation is that my noble friend goes on this delegation on the nomination of the Government, without any consultation with the Liberal Party in either House of Parliament, and that for the first time the position of the Liberal Party as a recognised Opposition has been completely ignored. That is a situation which we cannot overlook without protest. In this House the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has throughout been scrupulous in consulting the Leader of the Liberal Party as well as the Leader of the Opposition. The same procedure has been followed in another place. Whenever there is a question of consultation between the Leaders, the Leaders of the Liberal Party in both Houses have been called in. Whenever there is a statement to be made, the statement has been given in advance to the Leaders of the Liberal Party in both Houses. When there was an allocation of broadcasting time, the Liberals were included for an allocation of the available time. Now, for the first time, that position is attacked.
  It was announced that the membership of the British delegation would be eighteen. The official Opposition were allotted six—quite rightly, if I may say so—and they were given, I understand, the opportunity to discuss amongst themselves who those persons should be and to submit their nominations to the Government. And in due course the Government accepted them and included them in the delegation. At that time no approach was made to the Liberal Party. They were ignored, and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is a member of the delegation is, for this purpose, completely adventitious, because as I say,
  1390
  he is not there on the nomination of the Liberal Party, nor is he there because of his Liberal political views, but because he is the Chairman of the United Europe movement. The question is not whether the noble Lord should or should not be there; everyone would agree that he should. The question is whether it is right for the Government, for the first time, to have ignored altogether in this connection the fact that there was a Liberal Opposition, and to have refused them any opportunity to nominate a member.
  After all, the Council of Europe is a subject which makes an immense appeal to Liberals, and there are more Liberals in this country than the limited number at present in the House of Commons. It makes an appeal not only to Liberals in this country, who have taken a prominent part in building up the organisation; it makes an appeal also to those Liberals whose resurgence on the Continent of Europe is a remarkable feature of to-day's politics and who would be surprised, and indeed dismayed, to find that the Liberal delegation on this occasion contains no member nominated as a Liberal by the Liberal Party in this country. I find it impossible to allow the Statement which the noble Viscount was good enough to make to pass without making it perfectly plain that we are surprised, disappointed and indignant at the treatment we have received.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I shall, of course, convey to my right honourable friend the observations of the noble Marquess. I cannot but feel he is under some misapprehension on this subject, but owing to the short notice I have had, I have not been able to ascertain precisely all the steps that were taken, and therefore I can give only a provisional reply. I can assure the noble Marquess that I will repeat all he has said to my right honourable friend. I can well imagine, in view of the eminent part which Lord Layton has taken in this question, and the prominence of the place that he occupies in the Liberal Party, that the view might well have been taken that no more suitable and representative Liberal could have been chosen.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I say this? If that had been the view, would it not have been at least courteous to consult the Liberal Party in advance as to whether they

  1391
  thought Lord Layton was the right representative? They might well have thought he was.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, as to that, all I can say is that, in my usual rôle of peacemaker, I will convey the remarks of the noble Marquess to my right honourable friends. The noble Marquess knows very well that we are most meticulous in observing these courtesies to one another, and I am sure there was no intention on anybody's part to depart from them on this occasion.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WOOD LANE SITE). BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.