Lords Sitting of 29 March 1949

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
  Moved, That in the event of a Message being received from the Commons that they have passed the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the Bill precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and of passing the Bill through all its stages.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.
  Then, Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
  2.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading seeks to amend and bring into line with modern requirements the law relating to patents and designs. Although a grant for the use and exercise of an invention is known to have been given by the Crown five hundred years ago, the first Statute for regulating such grants was the Statute of Monopolies of 1624. It is a matter of passing historical interest that it is almost fifty years ago to-day that what may be regarded as the greatest invention of the modern age first saw practical expression. It was fifty years ago that Marconi first transmitted a wireless message. Some measure of the growth of patents, and the part they play in the industrial life of this country, will be seen when I tell your Lordships that the Patent Office has just issued the one-millionth patent of which about 90,000 remain in force to-day. During pre-war years patents were granted at the rate of about 20,000 a year. This figure will give your Lordships some idea of the volume of work carried out by the Patent Office.
  In passing, I would mention something that is not usually known—namely, that the Patent Office maintains what is considered to be the finest technical library in the world, containing 320,000 volumes, which are of great use to research students and the like. The public have free access to this library, and 2,000 people a week avail themselves of this privilege. Modern use of patents and industrial designs is based upon the Patents and Designs Act, 1907. Since that date seven amending Acts have been passed. If this, the eighth, meets with the approval of Parliament, it is intended to present two Consolidation Bills—one for the consolidation of the law relating to patents, and the other for the consolidation of the law relating to registered designs, which in future will be separate Statutes.
  It is hardly necessary for me to tell your Lordships that this whole subject is very technical and complicated. Point is given to that observation by the fact that the Departmental Committee which the

  753
  Board of Trade set up in 1944 to review the patent law and its procedure sat for eighty-one whole days, over a period extending just over three years. The Committee were presided over by the eminent patent lawyer, Mr. Kenneth Swan, K.C., and the members of the Committee were specially chosen for their suitability to deal with the highly technical matters covered by the Committee's terms of reference. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of paying tribute to the Chairman of that Committee, and to the members, for the very able manner in which they discharged their heavy and involved task. The Committee presented three Reports containing recommendations and, with one exception, the recommendations were unanimous.
  The First Interim Report was published in 1945 (Cmd. No. 6618), and dealt mainly with conditions arising from the war. The recommendations contained in that Interim Report were given legislative effect by Section 1 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1946, and I need not trouble your Lordships further with that Report. The Second Interim Report (Cmd. No. 6789) was published in 1946, and the Final Report (Cmd. No. 7206) in September, 1947. These Reports have had the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, and the recommendations contained in them are substantially accepted. The Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships this afternoon is intended to give effect to certain of these recommendations and to make other changes in the law which, in the light of past experience, having regard to modern requirements, His Majesty's Government deem necessary.
  Before I deal with the Bill itself, I would pause to explain to your Lordships that although it contains a large number of amendments of varying degrees of importance to the existing law, no radical change is made in the fundamental principles of the present patent system. With your Lordships' permission I will quote from the Second Interim Report. Paragraph 9 says:
  "The theory upon which the patent system is based is that the opportunity of acquiring exclusive rights in an invention stimulates technical progress, mainly in four ways: first, that it encourages research and invention; second, that it induces an inventor to disclose his discoveries, instead of keeping them as a
  754
  trade secret; third, that it offers a reward for the expense of developing inventions to the stage at which they are commercially practicable; and fourth, that it provides an inducement to invest capital in new lines of production which might not appear profitable if many competing producers embarked on them simultaneously. This history of industrial development seems on the whole to have justified this theory."
  I would then direct your Lordships' attention to paragraph 11 in which the Committee say:
  "We are in favour of the retention of the present system in this country, and this view is supported by witnesses who have appeared before us, representing both inventors and the commercial users of inventions. Some witnesses also expressed concern at the harm that would be caused to our foreign trade if, by any radical change in our patent system, we rendered ourselves ineligible for continued membership of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property."
  His Majesty's Government concur in that view, and I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain that the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property is an agreement between most of the leading countries of the world, whereby each gives to nationals of the others the same privileges in respect of patents as they accord to their own.
  The Bill contains fifty-one clauses and three Schedules. As your Lordships will see, the fifty-one clauses occupy thirty-two pages of the Bill, and the three Schedules occupy thirty-three pages. In the interests of your Lordships' time and patience, I do not propose to detain you at this stage with the contents of the Schedules. I intend, with your Lordships' permission, to concentrate upon the main provisions as set out in the clauses, and to leave to another stage—if your Lordships desire the Bill to proceed—the consideration of a large number of detailed provisions, many of them of a complicated and a technical character and, I am afraid, not easy to understand. In order to assist your Lordships in following the alterations of the law which it is proposed should be made, a White Paper (Cmd. No. 7645) has been prepared containing the texts of two draft Consolidation Bills incorporating the amendments now proposed by this Bill. In an effort still further to assist your Lordships, I propose to group together under five heads the more important provisions, and I will deal with them in the following order: first, changes in

  755
  the procedure in connection with applications for patents and in the system of dating patents; secondly, improvements in, and amplification of, the provisions respecting the abuse of monopoly rights or insufficient use of patented inventions; thirdly, the enlargement of the provisions relating to the user of patented inventions for the services of the Crown, and for preserving secrecy of certain inventions; fourthly, improvements in, and reducing the cost of, legal proceedings relating to patents; and, fifthly, changes in the law and procedure concerning the registration of designs.
  Dealing with the first group of provisions, Clauses 1 and 10 alter the existing law by making it possible for the person or persons to whom the inventor has assigned the rights of his invention to apply for a patent. The "true and first" inventor need not be a party to application, but his name must be disclosed in the application. Your Lordships will appreciate that there is good reason for this: it frequently happens that the inventor, having assigned his rights in the invention, loses interest, or is no longer available to sign the application documents. Clauses 3 and 4 make important changes in the dates given to patents, and the consequential alteration in the Patent Office procedure will bring our practice substantially into line with that of most of the countries belonging to the International Convention. For the future, it is proposed that the date of the patent, both domestic and Convention, shall be the date upon which the completed specification is filed. This does not affect the filing of provisional specifications or the claiming of priority dates, but the claim to priority will have substance only in the event of intervening circumstances which make the priority date of material significance. No change is made in the time of expiry of the patent; the normal term of sixteen years will in future date from the date of the patent. Some postponement of the times for the payment of certain renewal fees will be involved, but this will remove the sense of grievance which some Convention countries have had in the past. The new system has many advantages, not the least being that it will encourage better and fuller disclosure of inventions and the best way of working those inventions to the ultimate benefit of the public.
  756
  There is one point relating to the application for a patent to which I think it would be proper for me to draw your Lordships' attention, as it concerns the only recommendation which did not command the support of the whole of the members of the Swan Committee. In paragraph 79 of the Second Interim Report of the Committee, the majority recommendation was made that jurisdiction should be conferred upon the Comptroller to enable him to reject applications for patents that appeared to him to be wholly lacking in inventive merit or, to use the technical term, "subject matter." His Majesty's Government have given this subject careful consideration and, whilst not necessarily concurring in the objections put forward by the two dissentient members of the Committee, have decided not to implement this recommendation. However, the grant of a patent can be opposed on new grounds, as set out in Clause 6 of the Bill, which are in line with the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 87 of the Second Interim Report and substantially cover the lack of subject matter.
  I now come to my second group of provisions, those relating to the abuse of monopoly rights or insufficient use of patented inventions. May I pause here to explain that the essential right given by a patent is not the right of the patentee himself to make or use an invention but the right to prevent others from making and using it? That is the exclusive or monopoly right, and it is against the abuse of this right that safeguards are needed. Clauses 15 to 23 of the Bill replace Section 27 of the present Act, and incorporate some important changes in the law relating to the abuse of monopoly rights. It will, I think, be for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain that the law as it now stands—and it is not proposed to alter it—enables a patentee to request the Comptroller to endorse his patent with the words "Licences of right," whereby the patentee invites all corners to take a licence, the terms of the licence to be agreed by the applicant and himself or, in default of agreement, to be settled by the Comptroller. The patentee receives as a reward for this action a reduction of 50 per cent. in the renewal fees.
  There is a popular supposition that inventions are deliberately suppressed, either by the patentee or by those who

  757
  have acquired the patent rights, in such a way as to amount to a public mischief. The Swan Committee formed the opinion that the prevalence of this type of restriction had been much exaggerated. Whether or not that be the case, His Majesty's Government feel that with the object of encouraging the greater use of inventions the grounds on which an application may be made to the Comptroller for a compulsory licence under a patent, the patentee having refused to grant a licence, should be enlarged. May I cite, as an example, the case where the patentee may be exploiting an invention to the full extent of his ability, but where there may be still other uses of the invention, or demands for the patented article, which remain undeveloped or unfulfilled? Or it may be a case where the demands of the home market are sufficiently met and an export market is neglected; or, again, where a subsequent inventor has made an important advance on what is regarded as the master patent and is prevented or hampered in working his invention by reason of refusal of the master patentee to grant him a licence on reasonable terms. Clause 15 makes provision for the grant of licences in this and like cases.
  Clause 18 contains a new provision which enables Government Departments to apply for the endorsement of a patent "Licences of right" where there exist any of the grounds upon which a compulsory licence may be granted. Clause 18 (2) provides for action based on the proceedings of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. While the fact-finding functions of the Monopolies Commission extend over the field of patents and patent licence agreements, it is left to this Bill to provide the mechanism for applying sanctions or remedies when the Commission report adversely to the patentee. Clause 18 also provides that where, according to a Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission as laid before Parliament under the relative Act, or according to a Resolution of the House of Commons following such a Report, restrictive practices are disclosed in the granting of licences and use of patents such as would be against the public interest, the competent authority under the Act may apply to the Comptroller for cancellation or modification of the restrictive conditions or for the endorse-
  758
  ment of the patent "Licences of right." In order to facilitate application to the Comptroller under these provisions, it is further laid down in Clause 21 (6) that any finding in a Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission as laid before Parliament relating to the use of a patented invention shall be conclusive evidence in the proceedings before the Comptroller. It is hoped that these changes which I have outlined will result in a wider use of the compulsory licensing provisions of the Acts than has hitherto been the case and, therefore, in a much greater use of patented inventions for the national benefit.
  I now come to Clauses 25 to 29, which relate to the use of patented inventions for the services of the Crown. I would first of all explain to your Lordships that it is a condition of the grant of a patent, inserted as a proviso in the Letters Patent, that the patentee shall supply the patented article on reasonable terms to any Government Department for the services of the Crown, upon penalty of revocation of his patent. Where a Government Department order articles from the patentee himself, the Bill provides that the terms of any agreement between the patentee and any other person which might prevent or restrict the supply of the articles for the services of the Crown are to be inoperative in respect of such supply. In the particular case of manufacture by the patentee himself, no general provision is made for any claim to compensation. It is considered that the patentee is remunerated by the price of the articles which is paid to him by the Crown, and that any agreement he may have made with others cannot override the known rights of the Crown, which are clearly set out in the Letters Patent.
  A different set of circumstances arise and call for different treatment, however, where a Government Department, or any person authorised by that Department, is allowed to make and use a patented invention for the services of the Crown. Neither the patent rights nor the terms of any agreement entered into by the patentee with any third party can interfere with such use. The patentee may, however, in this case claim compensation for such use, and the compensation, in the absence of agreement between the patentee and the Crown, would be settled by the court. Further provision

  759
  is made in Clause 27, to enable any person who has suffered loss because his agreement with a patentee has been made inoperative by the action of the Crown to make a claim against the patentee for a share of this compensation paid by the Crown. If the parties cannot agree upon the share, it may be determined by the court.
  Clause 26 extends the right of a Government Department to use a patented invention for the purpose of supplying articles to the Government of another country under an agreement entered into between the two Governments. During the late war, the rights of the Crown to use a patented invention were extended by Defence Regulations to cover a number of purposes in the national interest, and this emergency legislation has been now incorporated in the Bill by Clause 29, so as to be immediately available in the event of another war. As your Lordships will appreciate, it may, however, be necessary for the Crown to use patents not only during a war but also during a period when a war is in prospect. The existing Defence Regulations are due to expire in December, 1950. Clause 29, therefore, provides that any new period of emergency during which these special provisions would apply should be fixed by Order in Council. Of course, it is intended that they should apply only during a period of national emergency.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: How is that defined?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is defined by the Order in Council. Secrecy can be imposed on a patent for an invention relating to a munition of war under the present provisions of the Patents Acts, but the procedure is cumbrous and can be resorted to only when the patent has been assigned, and the provisions have proved to be insufficient in recent years. Since September, 1939, provision for secrecy has been made by Defence Regulations. It is proposed to repeal the pre-war provisions, and Clause 30 makes permanent the war-time procedure. Under this procedure, the Defence Departments advise the Comptroller of inventions or classes of inventions which should be kept secret in the interests of the defence of the Realm. When the Comptroller receives
  760
  an application for an invention failing within one of these classes, he makes an order for secrecy and notifies the Department concerned. That Department will then obtain a copy of the specification from the applicant, or permission from the Comptroller to inspect the specification at the Patent Office when the specification has been accepted. The Department will then inform the Comptroller whether the secrecy order can be cancelled. Clause 30 also provides for compensation if a Government Department should make use of the invention which it has decided shall be kept secret, and compensation is then payable as if a patent had been granted.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: In that case, is the compensation paid only so far as the patent is used, or is the compensation paid because the owner of the patent is being deprived of its full exploitation, even though the Government are not using it?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The compensation is paid if, and only if, the patent is used.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: That means that the Government can stop it.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The group of provisions covered by Clauses 32 to 38 and 46 and 47, which have as their main object improvements in, and reducing the cost of, patent legislation will be considered by some to be the most important in the Bill. There can be little doubt that the complications and technicalities of litigation in connection with patents have resulted in the piling up of costs to such an extent that the scales of justice are weighted in favour of the wealthy litigant and against the small man, be he inventor or manufacturer, who cannot face the financial burdens of such litigation. This was the burden of the conclusions of the Swan Committee. This matter is of such importance that I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I quote what that Committee said upon this subject in their Second Interim Report. I quote from paragraph 99:
  "The complaint and criticism which have been directed against the present method of dealing with patent actions have convinced us that there is a widespread, in fact a universal, feeling of dissatisfaction. The commonest and most familiar ground of complaint

  761
  is the high cost of patent litigation, the reason for which we shall examine in due course; but there is also undoubtedly a very general lack of confidence in the adequacy of the tribunal before which these patent cases come, and a feeling that the Judges charged with the task of deciding patent actions have not the necessary scientific or technical knowledge or experience to assess the value of the expert evidence or arrive at sound conclusions where the invention in question involves, as it frequently does, the discussion of highly complex chemical, electrical, mechanical or physical matters."
  Paragraph 100 says:
  "It is a common occurrence in patent actions of this kind that a considerable time (perhaps several days) is taken up in instructing the Judge in the elements of the technology with which the invention is concerned, in order that the specification can be made intelligible to him. In cases of this character, in which highly paid counsel and experts are retained on either side, this process of instructing the Court in the science of the case makes a very serious addition to the total costs."
  Paragraph 101 says:
  "But there are other disadvantages, no less serious, in entrusting the decision of such cases to Judges who have had no previous scientific training, however learned and eminent they may be as exponents of the law."
  After enumerating these other disadvantages, the Committee say in paragraph 106:
  "All these points have been stressed in the criticisms directed against the existing system, and amongst those who have expressed their views on this subject, complete unanimity prevails as to the urgent need for having patent actions tried by Judges who have not only the legal, but also the scientific and technical qualifications necessary for dealing expeditiously and satisfactorily with such cases."
  That was the unanimous conclusion of the Swan Committee, which contained three eminent lawyers.
  Clause 47 provides for the appointment of an additional puisne Judge. The Bill makes no express provision for such qualifications as were outlined by the Committee. It is left to my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, to make such an appointment. There were many other recommendations made by the Committee which had as their objectives to facilitate, simplify and cheapen legal proceedings which find expression in the Bill.
  Clause 32 allows for provision to be made by rules of court for the appointment of scientific advisers to assist the court in infringement and other proceedings. An adviser would have an expert knowledge of the art involved, and his
  762
  function would not be to assist the court in the trial of matters in issue but to assist the court in elucidating the technical aspects of the case. By Clause 34, an exclusive licensee may bring proceedings for infringement of the patent, the patentee, if necessary, being joined as defendant. Clause 35 provides that any person may appeal to the court for a declaration that any action he is taking in relation to making, using or selling an article will not constitute an infringement of a patent. At present, manufacturers proposing to make a new article sometimes have considerable difficulty in determining whether or not they would be infringing patent rights. They may not wish to incur the trouble and expense of a speculative action for revocation of the patent, but if they go ahead with their manufacture, using or selling, they may waste capital and become involved later on in infringement proceedings. It is hoped that the procedure of declaratory judgments will enable them to resolve their doubts in a speedy manner.
  Clause 36 provides that a dispute between a patentee and some other person on the question of whether a patent has been infringed may, by agreement between the parties, be submitted to the Comptroller for determination, the Comptroller being allowed to award up to £1,000 in damages, unless the parties agree to a higher limit. Under the law as it now stands, all questions of infringement are determined by the courts alone. I would particularly draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 38, which deals with disputes between an employer and an employee as to the ownership of an invention made by the employee. My Lords, such disputes can be many and varied, and at present unless the parties can agree as to their respective rights, the only recourse is an action in the Courts. His Majesty's Government consider that it should be possible to settle these disputes by a more simple and cheaper process, and this clause provides that the Comptroller may, at the request of either party, determine the matter in dispute unless he directs that it would more appropriately be dealt with by the courts.
  It is provided in the Bill that all appeals from decisions of the Comptroller shall go to the Patents Appeal Tribunal, not only in regard to the matters which the Comptroller is empowered by the present Act to decide but also in regard to the

  763
  additional jurisdiction which it is proposed to give him in this Bill. The Tribunal consists of a Judge of the High Court, but proceedings before the Tribunal are much cheaper than those in the High Court. It is not essential for a person appealing to the Tribunal to be represented by counsel; he can be represented by his patent agent. Moreover, in many cases the parties to the appeal are the appellant and the Comptroller, and in such cases there is no award of costs, whether the appeal is successful or not. Provision is made in the Bill for appeals from decisions of the Tribunal to be made in certain cases to the Court of Appeal.
  I now come to the fifth and final set of provisions, those relating to designs. At present these may be registered in one or more of fifteen classes fixed by Board of Trade rules. The classification is completely out of date, and it is a curious mixture of particular kinds of articles, and articles made of particular materials, based, it is thought, upon a catalogue which was produced for the Great Exhibition of 1851. The Bill proposes, in Clause 40, that in future the protection conferred by registration shall be limited to the article in respect of which the design is registered. It is also proposed to exclude from registration, by rules to be made if and when this Bill becomes an Act, certain articles which are primarily literary or artistic in character; these will be then subject to the Copyright Act. The copyright in a registered design is enlarged by the provisions of this Bill to cover importation not only for sale but also for use in any trade or business. By Clause 42 the Bill further abolishes the existing requirements to mark articles bearing designs with the prescribed registration mark; instead, it provides protection for the innocent infringer on the same lines as in the case of patents. The secrecy provisions applying to patents will be extended to designs; and, as I have told your Lordships, it is proposed upon consolidation to separate the Statute dealing with designs from that dealing with patents.
  My Lords, that is the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. If your Lordships express your contentment with the Motion I am about to propose, you will, on the Committee stage, have the benefit of the wisdom and
  764
  learning of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. At the same time His Majesty's Government will have the benefit of the helpful and constructive criticism of noble Lords opposite, which is one of the prime reasons why this Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House. I am conscious that in presenting this highly technical and complicated Bill I have been doing so in the presence of many noble Lords, not only learned in the Patent Law but widely experienced in the use of patents and inventions. It may have crossed the minds of some noble and learned Lords that in my presentation I have treated in a somewhat cavalier fashion the established customs and usages of the law. If that is thought, may I pray in aid of my speech what was once so truly said of woman?—
  "Be to her virtues very kind,
  Be to her faults a little blind."
  My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  3.19 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord for the clear and exhaustive explanation which he has delivered to the House of this undoubtedly complicated measure, and the masculine vigour with which he has presented the considerations which he has set before us do not need any apology by reference to the gentler—I will not say the weaker—sex, with which he concluded his remarks. But, notwithstanding this clear, and indeed confident, account of the subject matter of the Bill, I still feel that the House, or at any rate most members of the House, may be rather disposed to regard this measure as dealing with a topic suitable only for specialists—as a measure where experts rush in where angels fear to tread. Let me therefore say at once, as I am venturing to intervene in the debate, that I am not claiming to speak as an expert about this matter. It so happens, however, that I have had, both forensically and judicially, some occasional contact with this interesting and difficult subject, and I feel strongly that it is one which the House must be prepared to consider with care and thoroughness in the Committee stage.
  Although it is true that patents, and perhaps still more designs, are topics

  765
  which call for very special examination and careful understanding, the real subject matter of this Bill, clearly, is how the claims of an individual, who has rights, are to be balanced with the public interest. That, perhaps, is the first duty of Parliament—at any rate in the sphere of domestic legislation. What are the rights of the individual and how far should he be entitled to claim to enjoy those rights without interference? On the other hand, what are the rights of the community in reference to that which the individual has under his control? A whole series of questions, which every Parliament, in the course of time, has to consider, may be largely grouped under that issue. The important thing with regard to this Bill is to see that before it leaves this Chamber we have made the proper adjustment between the claim of the individual inventor whose brains, study and skill have led him to a particular form of discovery, and the claims of the community to which he belongs to take advantage of, and to enjoy, that which is primarily the product of his own brain.
  There is no need, of course, in this connection to introduce the familiar controversy as to the extent to which nationalisation should go, but I hope that I may have the approval of noble Lords opposite when I say that although—whether wisely or unwisely—many forms of work may be nationalised, there is one thing which no Government, however accomplished, would be able to nationalise; and that is human brains. The brain will remain the equipment of the individual who possesses it as the result of training, research and diligence sometimes almost unfathomable, That is the real question involved in any big piece of patent legislation, for nobody, I think, disputes that the inventor of a patentable invention should be recognised as having a special claim, a special right. It is a product just as much as anything which he may construct with his hands or grow in his garden; it is a product of his brain, but it is a form of property which we all recognise as being something which attaches to him.
  On the other hand, if (as has happened again and again in the history of every civilisation, and certainly in ours) from time to time some inventor makes a discovery of value, though in a sense it is his and belongs to him, he ought
  766
  none the less also to be regarded as making a contribution for the general good. Therefore we need legislation to secure that the general interests of the country are properly served and supplied on reasonable terms as between the inventor and the community at large. So I venture to submit—and this is the way in which I have always regarded this subject—that one ought not to leave this matter simply to the specialists. It is possible to understand many of the provisions of a Bill of this sort—at any rate the main ones—if one takes a little trouble and is reasonably well equipped, without at all claiming to be (and it is something which I certainly do not claim to be) a specialist in the matter.
  That leads me to say a word about one matter referred to in the Bill and touched upon in the interesting review of its contents made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—that is, the proposal to authorise in this connection the appointment of an addition Judge. It may be interesting to your Lordships to notice, if you look at the Explanatory Memorandum, which is a preface to the Bill, that the last paragraph runs thus:
  "Clause 47 provides for the appointment of an additional puisne Judge who will deal primarily with patent cases."
  I speak in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but I do not think he will be likely to differ from me when I say that if, in fact, Clause 47 said that, I should be against it. I do not think it is right for an Act of Parliament to provide that a Judge should be appointed to deal primarily with a particular kind of case. Broad divisions may be necessary, but I happen to belong to the school which thinks, whether rightly or wrongly, that while one may have the greatest respect for those who are experts in these complicated and difficult scientific questions—heaven knows I do not claim to understand more than a very small corner of them—there are still good reasons for saying that, for judicial purposes and also, I may add, for the arguing of such cases, it is just as well to rely on an adequate and broader equipment in addition to the special qualifications which, I dare say, are appropriate.
  The clause, itself, is unexceptionable in form. The noble Lord did not tell us that it does not, in fact, carry out the recommendation of the Kenneth

  767
  Swan Committee, which recommended that there should be two such Judges. In their Report, the Committee go on to discuss a very difficult question: If there are Judges who are, so to speak, earmarked for this purpose, and one does not like a decision given by one of them, what is going to happen when the matter is taken to appeal? The case goes to the Court of Appeal wherein, as a rule, sit three Law Lords, and they will not be similarly selected because of special attainments in this department. Peradventure, the matter may even come to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. No one has greater respect for the legal members of your Lordships' House than I have, or has more occasion to entertain that feeling of respect. But that they are a crew of patent lawyers, I most emphatically deny. The truth really is that, at any rate on occasion, we have to apply this principle—not acceptable, I know, in all quarters—that if a man is really well qualified to understand one thing by the use of his judgment, brains, attention and comprehension, that is some reason why, if he works at it, he will understand something else if it is also adequately presented to him.
  So, while far from saying that there should not be included among His Majesty's Judges some who have, through their scientific training, a ready acquaintance with these matters, I do not believe it is a sound principle to say: "How can a man try Admiralty cases unless he has had experience for so many years at sea?" I will not ask what, if that argument were carried further, would be the qualifications required in the case of a man trying divorce cases. It is obvious that real qualification for judicial office does not depend in all cases on a precise acquaintance with the exact subject matter with which particular cases may have to deal. However, I have no objection to Clause 47. If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor tells us that he thinks an extra Judge is needed, I have not the slightest doubt that he, or any other occupant of the Woolsack, will see, in making a selection, that there is work of a very special kind to be done and it is well to include among the Judges some who are well qualified to do it. I altogether deny that patent cases cannot be well tried by a Judge who has a much
  768
  wider range than that, for if that were so—I will not recite the names, but half a dozen names occur to me at this moment, not excluding some members of your Lordships' House—there are a number who, in that view, would be regarded as not capable of trying patent cases when they have tried them well again and again.
  We shall gladly give a Second Reading to this Bill, and also gladly join the noble Lord opposite in expressing our appreciation of the very notable service rendered by Mr. Kenneth Swan, K.C., and his Committee. All I wish to do at this stage is to call attention to two or three provisions in the Bill which I select as illustrating the importance of considering the exact enactment we are prepared to approve when we come to the Committee stage. If I offer a criticism, it is not because I do not appreciate the general value of these proposals it is only because, when we come to the Committee stage, the things especially to be considered then will be those on which there might be some doubt and difficulty.
  Take first of all the group of clauses which deal with the abuse of patent rights—Clauses 14 to 23. Of course, it is perfectly right to revise the law on this subject, but I think the question will arise in Committee whether the present language of the Bill does not go too far in some respects. These clauses set out the grounds on which a person who is not the owner of a patent may none the less apply to the Comptroller of Patents, a very important official of the Board of Trade, for a licence to use the patent. Normally, if everything goes well, a man who owns a patent—he owns it only for sixteen years—will be prepared to grant a licence on suitable terms to others who would like to use it. He receives a royalty, the licensee obtains the right to use the invention which the patentee has made, and all goes as it should go, without litigation and without dispute. But there are cases where, for one reason or another, a man who wants to use a patent which does not belong to him cannot get leave to use it on what he considers to be reasonable terms.
  Clause 15 provides that:
  "At any time after the sealing of a patent, any person interested may apply to the comptroller for a licence under the patent upon any one or more of the grounds specified in the next following subsection."

  769
  In the next subsection a series of grounds are set out in a list. Speaking quite provisionally, without wishing to assert a final view, but merely to raise the point on Second Reading, I venture to ask whether the phraseology of some of these alternative grounds is not such as needs reconsideration. Take the first one:
  "that the patented invention, being capable of being commercially worked in the United Kingdom, is not being commercially worked therein or is not being so worked to the fullest possible extent."
  Let us consider that. A man is to be entitled to apply to the Comptroller because A.B. has a sealed patent. He says he is entitled to compel this patentee to give him a licence and his ground is that it is not being worked "to the fullest possible extent." I feel quite confident that there are a great many instances where, from the very nature of the case, one could not expect any reasonable person the day after, or the week after, he has obtained a sealed patent to use it "to the fullest possible extent." In some cases it might very well be that a considerable preliminary outlay is required. It may very well be that a patentee has to do his best to promote a demand for the article. I suggest that this phrase "to the fullest possible extent" is too stiff, and what, really is, or ought to be, meant is "to the extent that is reasonably practicable," which is quite a different test and, I venture to think, a much more appropriate one.
  I am a little confirmed in my view if I remind the authorities of the wording in the principal Act—the Lloyd George Act of 1907. When Mr. Lloyd George, as a young Cabinet Minister, produced for the first time in the House of Commons his principal Bill of the Session, some people thought he did not show himself a very good free-trader in some of the clauses that Bill contained; but then he was never a purist in those matters. The main Act of 1907 contains phraseology which I think is worth comparing with the present wording. Look at Section 24 of that Act, which speaks of:
  "the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention have not been satisfied",
  and the default is described, I think, as a failure to manufacture
  "to an adequate extent and supply it on reasonable terms."
  770
  I will not speak longer about this because it is a Committee point, but I think the language used in Clause 15 of this Bill is a little too severe.
  In the same way I very much doubt whether the next paragraph of the clause is phrased in the wisest terms. Paragraph (b) provides:
  "that a demand for the patented article in the United Kingdom is not being met on reasonable terms, or is being met to a substantial extent by importation."
  The second part of that test means that the patentee holding a British patent has none the less so arranged matters that the patent is being applied, not inside this country but outside, and that the product is therefore being imported into this country instead of being made here. Of course, nothing is easier than to excite people on the argument that everything should be made in this country and not imported: though what would happen if anybody really tried to carry that cut is the same as would happen if everybody expelled his breath from his body and never drew any breath in. The truth of the matter is that, within reasonable limits, imports and exports have a relation to one another.
  If I may suggest a purely imaginary case, let me suppose that the invention is one which could be best used in the tropics. Perhaps it is an invention connected with the preservation of tropical fruits. It may well be that the best thing is for it to be exploited in Jamaica or West Africa, or where you please, and the demand in this country should be met to a substantial extent by importation. If that is done, you may thereby organise an export which helps to pay for it. I am sure that what is meant here is what is not stated—namely, that this test is a good test only if what is found to be the fact is being done "contrary to the public interest." Perhaps when we come to the Committee stage some words of that kind might be considered for the purpose of qualifying the test. The same remark applies to paragraph (c). Similarly, I think that when we come to one or two other provisions of this part of the Bill it will be desirable to see whether the language is quite suitable. I mention merely paragraph (d), where I think the phrase should not be, "prevented or hindered,", but "prevented or unfairly hindered," because, within limits, in many cases you

  771
  are certain to be hindering the working of a patent here if you are importing to meet the demand.
  I now turn to Clause 18. Here I must say I think it is fairly clear that the clause goes further than we would wish to go, and I hope, on reflection by the Government, further than they would wish to go. Clause 18 is a clause to which my noble friend opposite made some reference in his speech. It is the clause which provides:
  "At any time after the sealing of a patent, any Government Department may apply to the Comptroller for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right' upon any one or more of the grounds specified in section fifteen of this Act;"
  As my noble friend has reminded the House, "licences of right" is a phrase that is used to mean that, though you may be the exclusive owner of the patent, you are required to let anyone who chooses get a licence from you on terms which are either arranged or can be reasonably settled. It really turns the patent in that case from being what I may call a proprietary article into something which is to be supplied to everybody on royalty terms. How can a man the day after his patent is sealed be expected to be working it commercially to the fullest possible extent? I have already pointed to that difficulty under Clause 15. Yet if he is not doing so, under Clause 18 any Government Department may forthwith apply for the patent to be indorsed with the words "licences of right." As I understand it, Clause 18 does not seem to me to give due weight to an important paragraph in the Kenneth Swan Report. I may be wrong about this matter. I just offer the observation to my noble friend, and I am sure he will consider it.
  If your Lordships turn to the Second Interim Report, from which the noble Lord has already quoted, on page 11 you will see that the members of the Committee deal with what they describe as "suggested remedies." The Report says:
  "One proposal which has been widely discussed is to indorse all patents on grant with the words 'Licences of Right' in the same way as patents are at present voluntarily indorsed under the provisions of section 24. It is apparent that, if this proposal were adopted, it would radically alter the nature of a patent, and reduce it to a right to receive royalties for the use of the patented invention."
  772
  They go on to argue that so drastic a step would really operate to discourage patentees, and to discourage the disclosure of inventions, and would run counter to what is necessary—namely, that the State should grant to the inventor for a certain time and under certain conditions exclusive use or, at any rate, exclusive ownership combined with a granted permission to other people to use it also. I appreciate that the Swan Committee were dealing with a wider proposition than the proposition found in Clause 18. At the same time, I think the considerations which they put forward need to be carefully weighed in connection with the more limited application which one finds in Clause 18. I would invite my noble friend, as representing the Government, to consider between now and the Committee stage whether they have not, as a matter of fact, put that rather higher than they should. That is all I wish to say at the moment about that part of the Bill.
  There is, however, another very important part of this Bill, to which the noble Lord made reference, though I doubt whether what he said would necessarily convey fully all that is involved in the clauses to which I now want to refer. They have to do with a body called the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. That is a new body. I think if you set an examination paper to Members of Parliament of both Houses it is quite possible that they would not all get good marks if they were asked what that body is, and how it is composed. The fact of the matter is that we all agreed to set it up by legislation last year. My knowledge of the matter, I am afraid, has been largely derived from reading the Statute after it was passed. In that I am to blame. But under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, there is set up what is called a Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. That Commission is provided for elaborately in the Act. It consists of a number of persons who are nominated by the Board of Trade; its procedure is to be decided by the Commission itself (I will refer to one or two things about that in a moment); and its principal duty is to consider some branch of supply or manufacture referred to it by the Board of Trade in order that it may make a report. The Monopolies

  773
  and Restrictive Practices Commission may make a report which can either be limited to saying: "Such and such are the facts, and that situation may be expected to operate against the public interest, because there is too much of a monopoly about it"; or, alternatively, they may say: "Those are the facts, and we do not say any more about it, but leave others to decide whether it is a good or a bad thing."
  I must confess that when I refreshed my memory by reading this Statute of last year—more candidly, I should say, when I read it for the first time yesterday—I was much interested to know whether this inquiry (aimed, of course, at exposing the wickedness of monopoly) could possibly apply to nationalised industries, because the evil which is defined in the Act is that as much as one-third of a supply comes from one source. In nationalised industries the whole of the supply comes from one source. I thought how interesting it would be if the Board of Trade appointed a Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission to look into some of those matters and decide—what otherwise might be a rather difficult question for a prejudiced man to determine—whether such monopolies are good or bad things. However, I notice that that has been very ingeniously sidetracked in the Act of last year, because that Act contains this provision at the end of Section 2:
  "Provided that a reference shall not be made under this subsection where the prevalence of the conditions in question"—
  that is, the monopoly—
  "is expressly authorised by or under any enactment"—
  that excludes coal and railways, and will exclude iron and steel—
  "other than the enactments relating to patents and trade marks"
  which brings in the analysis of a possible monopolistic effect in the case of the owners of the trademark.
  The reason why I think these clauses need to be reconsidered is this. If your Lordships turn to page 16 of the Bill, Clause 21 (6), you will find it says:
  "In any proceedings on an application made in relation to a patent under sections fifteen to twenty of this Act, any statement with respect to the making, using, exercising or vending of the patented invention … contained in a Report of the Monopolies and
  774
  Restrictive Practices Commission … shall be conclusive evidence of the matters stated."
  In other words, there is a body, no doubt a most admirable body, appointed by the Board of Trade. That body has, at the request of the Board of Trade, to investigate the alleged disadvantages of undue monopoly in some trade or other. It makes a report. The report may be accurate or it may be inaccurate, but whatever it says is not only to be evidence but is to be conclusive evidence of anything which is relevant for the purpose of applying Clause 15—that is to, say, whether it is an application by a man who would like a licence, or whether it is an application under Clause 18 by a Government Department. I cannot think that that is right. What makes it still more extraordinary to me is that when I look at the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission and ask where the security is that this body has really got hold of the right end of the stick, I find that it is not required to hear persons interested (it may, but it is not required to do so); it is not required to sit in public; it may shut out everybody it likes except those whom it chooses to let in, and the whole report need not be presented to Parliament. I can only say that, for my part, not being at all in favour of the totalitarian system of government, I am not disposed to approve of a proposal which will invest with a sacrosanct and inspired character any statement made in the report of the Monopolies Commission when the Monopolies Commission act in those circumstances.
  Another thing which is very odd to me is this. If your Lordships turn to page 14 of the Bill, apparently it is intended to act on the authority of such a report before ever Parliament has considered the report at all. Your Lordships will observe in Clause 18 that if such a report, in respect of some trade or supply, says that the circumstances are such as to create an undue monopoly, then action may be taken by "a competent authority"—which is merely Parliamentary language for a list of half a dozen Government Departments — merely because the report says so, even before the report has been presented to Parliament and without any regard as to the view which Parliament takes of the report.

  775
  There, again, I must say that I think we are in danger of elevating the doubtless careful pronouncements of this official body to a position which does not obtain even in our Law Courts. There has been no sort of judicial inquiry; there has been no right given to those who wish to object or to appeal; there has been no sitting in public and yet, according to the way in which this Bill is drawn—unless I quite misunderstand its purport—these very surprising results follow because of a statement in the report of the Monopolies Commission. That is a matter which we may have to consider rather carefully. If I am right in my reading, I cannot believe that your Lordships' House would not think that rather an extreme example of legislation: to permit a Government Department to do away with an individual's property and rights without the protection of the courts, without the protection of Parliament and, indeed, it may be, without hearing what he has to say. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very glad to be corrected, but at least I think it is sufficiently important to mention it at this moment.
  There is one other matter which I would venture to mention briefly. I think we shall need to examine rather carefully the clauses which provide for the use of patented inventions for the services of the Crown. Here again, the general idea is perfectly right. Of course the community at large has a prior right to the right of any individual when the defence of the Realm or the safety of the State is involved. That goes without saying. That has always been so under our Patent Law. There is a section in the Act of 1907 which is very familiar to anybody who has had to do with this dismal subject—I think it is Section 29. It is the section which provides that
  "any Government Department may by themselves, their agents contractors or others, apply the use of an invention for the services of the Crown on such terms as may … be accepted by the Treasury after hearing all Parties interested."
  That is perfectly right, but in this new Bill—which we shall have to examine more in detail later on—Clauses 26 to 29 raise some quite serious questions. I particularly ask attention to the opening words of Clause 29, because really the matter is drawn so beautifully that unless one looks at it rather closely one thinks,
  776
  "That is reasonable enough." It begins with the words:
  "During any period of emergency within the meaning of this section, the powers exercisable in relation to an invention by a Government Department, or a person authorised by a Government Department under section twenty-six of this Act shall include power to make, use, exercise and vend the invention for any purpose which appears to the Department necessary or expedient"—
  and then follows a whole list of things.
  I may point out that the list is exceedingly wide. For instance, one of the purposes is in order to promote the productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture. I can well understand a school of thought which thinks that the best way in which to promote industry or agriculture is for the Government to acquire the use of a patent, not because it is necessary for the defence of the Realm or anything of that kind, but because, after all, they will manage these things much better than anybody else. Again, there is one paragraph which I am sure must give great comfort to Mr. Aneurin Bevan. That is paragraph (g), under which apparently the Department may, if it appears to the Government expedient
  "for assisting the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions …"
  claim Crown user. Those are very wide powers. The noble Lord opposite quite correctly explained that that, or something like it, was to be found in the Emergency Regulations. Yes, but the Emergency Regulations were made for the purpose of a temporary emergency and as he pointed out, they will come to an end necessarily quite shortly.
  Therefore, the question really is—and I set it to your Lordships, if I may respectfully do so, as a rather interesting case of "hunt the slipper"—what is "the period of emergency" under this clause? I need hardly say that the draftsman provided the answer. It is in subsection (2) and it says:
  "In this section the expression 'period of emergency' means the period ending with the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty, and any other period beginning on such date as may be declared by Order in Council to be the commencement, and ending on such date as may be so declared to be the termination, of a period of emergency for the purposes of this section."

  777
  Your Lordships will observe that an Order in Council is, of course, an instrument of the Government of the day. His Majesty and a number of Privy Counsellors meet in Council, the draft Order is before them, the Lord President mentions the name, and His Majesty says "Approved." There is no question at all of Parliament or the public being consulted. So it appears that a period of emergency under this clause may go on for ever: we are always to live in an emergency. That seems to me a rather serious matter, in view of the fact that the clause itself gives power to any Government Department to say, "It appears to us that it would be a very good thing, though you do not like it, if we were to take over this invention of yours and use it, because, after all, it is for the relief of suffering, and a well-constituted Government is able to do this sort of thing very much better than anybody else." I think there may be some members of your Lordships' House who would regard that as carrying the totalitarian principle which is inherent in Socialism rather far.
  There are other observations I might make, but I desist because I have occupied too much time already. I do not want to be at all critical of the general purposes of the Bill. I have picked out these particular points because they are matters which we must consider very carefully in Committee. But the main object of the Bill, which is the bringing up to date in many respects of certain matters, will, I think, be uncontroversial. We want to shape this measure quite impartially and to make it as fine an instrument as we can. I hope that before it leaves this House it will be felt to have been backed not only by a Government speaker or one or two experts, but by the general approval and good sense of this House. I repeat that I am not in the least opposed to the general purposes of this measure. I urge only that our duty as ordinary members of Parliament—not as experts—is to take the trouble to understand the effect of some of these things and to ask whether, in some respects, they do not need modification.
  4.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like at the beginning to say that I entirely agree with the observations which the noble and learned Viscount,
  778
  Lord Simon, has made. These questions must be very carefully considered, and I am sure that noble Lords on the other side, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, will not in any way grudge the time which will be required to examine with the greatest care, before it reaches the Statute Book, the provisions of this important Bill. With regard to Committee points, I will mention only one which it might be worth while adding to those which my noble friend has mentioned. It would come under Clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 6 states:
  "An application for a patent may be opposed under Section eleven of the principal Act upon any of the following grounds …
  (a) that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification, was used in the United Kingdom before the priority date of that claim;…
  Provided that for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Section no account shall be taken of any secret user."
  What I should like to have very carefully considered is whether those words are not rather too wide.
  I can illustrate the matter by citing the case of the Haskell golf ball. Mr. Haskell was an American subject and came over here with this patent, which had a great effect on human entertainment. The patent, of course, had to run the gauntlet of there having been an "anticipation." A delightful old gentleman who used to live in St. Andrews had invented a golf ball which was constructed by putting a small piece of rubber, or something of the sort, in the middle of what was going to serve as the ball, and then winding round elastic. The only elastic which he could find was taken from the two sides of a pair of elastic-sided boots. He used the elastic, and asked Tom Morris to make the outside of the ball. He then went out on the links at St. Andrews, and played soma shots, to his entire satisfaction. However, it was rather difficult to obtain the proper rubber, and he did not pursue the matter. But Mr. Haskell had to meet the point that there had been an anticipation of the user by the fact that the object of the patent had been used on the links. It was, in fact, held to be an anticipation, and Mr. Haskell got nothing out of his invention in this country.
  That is an example of the sort of case in which it is impossible entirely to safeguard an invention; that is, if the user, for the experiment on or improvement

  779
  of the invention has to be only of a semipublic nature. It has always been held that the user for experiment was not a user, and some such words ought, I think, to be inserted in this clause—or, at any rate, the matter should be further considered. If a man invents a new appliance for use in an omnibus or a railway train, or something of that sort, and it requires testing openly for the purposes of experiment it should not debar an application for the patent under Clause 6 of the present Bill. The same thing, of course, would apply to motor cars.
  I should like to say something of a more general character before I sit down. It is partly in reference to what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, said as regards patents and inventions. It is a long time since the Statute of Monopolies was passed, and the whole of scientific knowledge has been entirely altered. It is little exaggeration to say that the whole future progress of the world's science depends upon research, and that tens of thousands—I dare say millions—of people in difference countries are now engaged in different kinds of research, some of which may result in a patent for which they deserve to be remunerated but a great deal of which will not produce any patentable invention. In the United States, in this country and, before the last war, in Germany, there were vast numbers of employees of large companies who were engaged in nothing but research for the purposes, if possible, of obtaining a patent.
  I myself remember being concerned as a judge with a dyestuff patent of very great complexity. I think that the plaintiffs were an English company controlled by the great German fabric industry which was known all over the world. In connection with that case, I was told that there were about 2,000 people employed by the German parent company, simply for the purposes of investigating different combinations of materials which would enable them to produce new dyestuffs. They had had to work day after day with slight alterations of the quantities of material—and sometimes of the material itself—put into dyestuffs. The Germans, with a pertinacity worthy of a better cause, patented in this country thousands of these materials in the hope that, after the patents were obtained, at least one
  780
  of the thousands, or a much greater number, would be discovered to be a really useful article which would repay them for all the huge sums expended and for all the great trouble they had taken in connection with this kind of research.
  Something of that sort is going on all over the world to-day in connection with chemical products, with flying machines, with products of atomic energy and with a number of other great inventions which may revolutionise civilisation in the future. I wish that my noble friend Lord Cherwell would tell your Lordships something about the position of inventions. His knowledge is infinitely greater than mine, and he could explain to your Lordships in detail that almost everything depends upon research. I believe that it would be a tremendous mistake to do anything which would make the task of the inventor greater than it is at present, or the rewards of the successful inventor less than they now are. One must not suppose that, because an inventor has produced his invention, and patented it according to these proposed clauses, he has done his work and will reap some reward. I could give your Lordships numbers of instances of the most ingenious and, apparently, the most simple invention, where the inventor can do nothing with it.
  I will mention only one such example—an invention which we all have in every-day use and which, I imagine, the fair sex use more than we do—that is to say, the Zipp fastener. The inventor of the Zipp fastener travelled round England trying to get somebody to take it up. Nobody would take it up until at last a particular well-known tobacco manufacturer thought it would be useful for closing tobacco pouches. After that had been placed on the market, the world suddenly came to the conclusion that here was an invention which could be used for all kinds of businesses. I have said that because I hope very much that, in considering the clauses of this valuable Bill, we shall bear in mind that inventors, as a class, are among the worst paid, able people in the world. They have the hardest possible time and the rewards for their inventions are often nothing at all. Fleming, who invented the Fleming valve, could not find anybody to take it up, with the result that he could not afford at that time to pay the renewal fees. That

  781
  particular invention is in use in every radio set in the world. That is a single example which may be interesting to your Lordships.
  I urge your Lordships, therefore, to realise that the granting of a patent is the granting of a limited monopoly for a limited time; so it must be looked at with considerable care. The position of the patentee or his assignee must not be made more difficult than is in the public interest necessary, The clauses which give people the right to attack an inventor's patent, or to obtain compulsory licences, and so on, ought to be looked at with great care. Speaking in wide and general terms, I think that this Bill is an admirable Bill, and it will do a great deal to help the inventor, subject to a careful scrutiny of some of the matters which have been referred to. I have not the smallest doubt that the Bill deserves a Second Reading, and I hope that, improved as it may be before it passes through this House, it will be able in a short time to improve the position of inventors, whose interests I have at heart.
  4.18 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, after listening to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—who I suppose is one of the most knowledgeable lawyers upon patents in this country, and who, in presiding over your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, has delivered a judgment which has shattered the patent world—and to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham—who, I suppose, if I may be allowed respectfully to say so, enjoys the reputation of having been one of the most eminent Chancery Judges that this country has ever had—noble Lords in all parts of the House will realise that, when I stood at this Despatch Box earlier this afternoon, I felt like Daniel entering the lion's den. I cannot grumble at the quality of the lions I have had to face! As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, have said, most of the arguments that have been advanced require and deserve the close argument more appropriate to the Committee stage than to the winding up of a Second Reading. Every observation which both noble Viscounts have been pleased to make has only borne out what I have already said
  782
  —namely, that His Majesty's Government would have the benefit of their constructive criticism, which will be very seriously considered.
  I would, however, detain your Lordships for just a minute on the point which the noble and learned Viscount made about the appointment of another Judge. He asked whether we are to have Admiralty Judges and Divorce Judges with scientific accomplishments appropriate to their branch. That, my Lords, I am not concerned with. What I am concerned with—and Lord Maugham referred to this—is the present piling up of costs in patent actions which may last, and have lasted within this past month, for up to thirty days, with counsel's fees at the rate of £1,000 per day. How can the poor and impecunious inventor or manufacturer have a chance of securing justice in those circumstances? I maintain that that must be the overriding consideration of His Majesty's Government, if I may say so without any disrespect for the old-established practices, and also the prejudices, which have hitherto existed. The reason why His Majesty's Government did not accept the Swan Committee recommendation for two additional Judges was because in the past the number of patent cases which have gone to the Court of Appeal represent only about 40 per cent. of the total; and if the other recommendations in this Bill meet with the approval of your Lordships, we hope that that percentage w ill be radically reduced.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Is it 40 per cent.?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Forty per cent. go to the Court of Appeal.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not think I disagree with what the noble Lord is saving, but if the proportion is 40 per cent., whether you have this or not it means that 40 per cent. of the cases will go, on appeal, to a tribunal which does not consist of any of these experts.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, except perhaps if your Lordships' House accepts the Committee's recommendation about the expert adviser. But if the noble Viscount would care to put down an Amendment on the Committee stage to increase the number of Judges from one to two, I am sure we should consider it very seriously.

  783
  On the case which the noble and learned Viscount raised on Clause 15—that of an invention not being worked to the fullest possible extent—may I direct his attention to Clause 17, which seems wholly to have escaped him up to the present? That clause sets out the considerations which the Comptroller will have to bear in mind in arriving at any decision on matters submitted to him under Clause 15. Clause 17 (2) specifically lays down
  "Subject to the foregoing subsection, the Comptroller shall, in determining whether to make an order in pursuance of any such application, take account of the following matters, that is to say:

  (a) the measures already taken by the patentee or any licensee to make full use of the invention;

  (b) the ability of any person to whom a licence would be granted under the order to work the invention to the public anvantage; and

  (c) the risks to be undertaken by that person in providing capital and working the invention if the application is granted.…"

  In other words, the Comptroller does not, out of hand, give permission under Clause 15. He has to have regard to all the circumstances.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I agree that we may reserve this for Committee, and we are not at all likely to quarrel. But I think the noble Lord has been given the reference rather hurriedly, so may I point out that Clause 17 (2) (b) and (c) are not tests applying to the patentee at all. The tests there are as to whether the person who claims to be interested is a person who will, if he is granted the licence, be able to work it, or whether the risk which that person runs are such as are fully taken into account. With great respect, it has nothing to do with the patentee at all.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add this?—that the trouble with the inventor is that he cannot get anybody to work his invention or to take it up. I cannot help thinking that such a clause as Clause 17 ought somewhere to have a proviso in it to say that the inventor is not to be blamed if he has been using his best endeavours to obtain somebody to work the patent.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Although this discussion would be of
  784
  interest to both noble Viscounts and to myself, I think perhaps in the interests of the patience of other noble Lords we had better postpone it until the Committee stage. The noble Viscount made reference to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act. In relation to what it imposes this Bill follows strictly that Act. I think perhaps that will require close argument on the Committee stage. The only other point is the noble Viscount's question as to what constitutes an emergency. The emergency will be declared by Order in Council. If the noble Viscount can put forward any better suggestion as to who should declare an emergency, I am sure we shall be only too glad to consider it. I thank both Lord Simon and Lord Maugham for their support in principle of this Bill. His Majesty's Government look forward to having the help and criticism of both noble Lords on the next stage of the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS
  4.27 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, it may be convenient if I intervene at this point to make a short statement similar to that which is being made by the Prime Minister in another place this afternoon. It is to this effect:
  "The Commonwealth Prime Ministers will meet in London on April 21. The Prime Ministers of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon will be able to attend. The Prime Minister of Canada is doubtful whether he will be able to come himself, but, if not, Mr. Pearson, Secretary of State for External Affairs, will represent Canada. Matters not fully discussed at the October meetings of Prime Ministers involving certain constitutional questions will be considered at a short series of private meetings. They are expected to last a week."
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are much obliged to the Leader of the House for making that statement. Obviously it would be inappropriate to make any comment on it, except to say that I am sure we must

  785
  all be extremely glad that so many Prime Ministers have found it possible, at comparatively short notice, to represent their countries at this Conference; and also to say, that we wish it well. I assume that when the Conference has finished its work a full statement will be made, as I think was done after the last Commonwealth Conference; and, of course, that Parliament will have ample opportunity to discuss any recommendations or conclusions which may emerge from that Conference. Is that so?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the statement that has been made by the Leader of the House. We consider it good news, and we can only wish the Conference all success.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Viscount, it is difficult to anticipate but I have no doubt that a statement will be made at the conclusion of the Conference. Of course, I cannot say at this stage what that statement will contain; that will be for the Conference to decide. I have no doubt, however, that it will be of great interest.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: And Parliament will have full opportunity of discussing it?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have no doubt that that will be the case. I have not been able to consult my colleagues, but I should think we may take it that that will be so.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
  4.30 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 9 [Advisory committee and appeal tribunal]:
  VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved at the beginning of subsection (3) to insert "Subject to the provisions of this section". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment may I say that I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Listowel to read a statement in reply to a point which was raised earlier by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon? I will read this statement and then proceed to deal with the Amendment. My noble friend
  786
  promised Lord Simon to say something on the procedure which is proposed for the tribunal set up by this Bill. Here is the statement:
  The Lord Chancellor will make rules for the conduct of its proceedings in England and Wales; the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland; and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in that part of the United Kingdom. We contemplate that the tribunal will sit to hear evidence and argument, in the course of which documents will be put in in the usual way, and the parties will be free to appear in person, or by solicitor or counsel, or to call expert witnesses.
  My noble friend also undertook to see whether the reference to members of the appeal tribunal in the first article of the Second Schedule, in the plural, is correct, seeing that the decision of the President was to be the decision of the tribunal. We have examined this point and we find that there is nothing incorrect in the expression which appears also in Clause 9, subsections (4) and (5). The reference is to the President and the two assessors, and it is not incorrect to do so, since the right of decision specifically given to the President and the duty of advising given to the assessors, could not be affected.
  With the proposed Amendments to Clause 9, which I am now moving, the tribunal will become a "three-man show" for discharging its function of decision in certain cases. It will be enlarged by the addition of the two extra members. All these Amendments to Clause 9 relate to the same subject. The matter is dealt with at length in the Amendment standing in my name at page 9, line 32. That is the long Amendment at the end of the list. If it meets with your Lordships' convenience, I propose that we discuss all these Amendments to this clause together. The early Amendments merely pave the way to the long one at the end.
  When we were discussing the Bill on a former occasion it was pointed out that there might be objections to what was described as a "one-man tribunal" in certain cases, although there are two assessors. My right honourable friend the Postmaster-General has considered very carefully the contentions which were put forward and the long Amendment at line 32 is designed to meet criticisms

  787
  which were raised. Your Lordships will see from that Amendment that where it is appropriate, or even on the application of the chairman of the tribunal, two other persons may be added. There may well be a large number of small cases—that is, cases of minor importance—in respect of which it would not be common sense to have an extra large tribunal, but in other cases where the parties think it right, or, alternatively, if the chairman thinks it right, then two other persons can be added. We have incorporated words designed to meet criticisms which were raised by some noble Lords who said, in effect, that they did not want the tribunal to be composed solely of experts. The suggestion was that it should have on it ordinary, sensible, experienced people. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, stressed that point, and we have tried to meet it by stipulating that these two extra persons who may be appointed need not necessarily possess legal qualifications or expert knowledge. They must, of course, be suitable persons. I hope that the Amendment fully meets the criticisms which were raised with regard to the tribunal. I formally move the first Amendment which relates to it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 34, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section").—(Viscount Addison.)
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I think we are all obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for moving this Amendment. It is extremely difficult to get a really suitable tribunal for all cases, but I think we can trust the Lord Chancellor of the day to appoint appropriate persons. If, for instance, there was a case of interest to housewives, he could easily put a woman on the tribunal. If not, he would undoubtedly put on someone else who was suitable. I think this Amendment goes a long way to meet the difficulties which we envisaged. I welcome the Amendment and I thank the noble Viscount for putting it down.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, as I have explained all these Amendments relate to the same subject. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 18, leave out ("Provided if the parties to any particular case") insert—
  ("(4) If, within such time, if any, as may be limited in that behalf by the rules regulating the procedure of the appeal tribunal, the parties to any particular case before the tribunal").—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 21, leave out ("proviso") and insert ("subsection").—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 26, leave out ("this subsection") and insert ("subsection (3) of this section").—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(5) If, in the case of any reference or application to the appeal tribunal under section eleven of this Act, any of the parties or the president of the tribunal, within such time, if any, as may be limited in that behalf by the rules regulating the procedure of the tribunal, request the Lord Chancellor, if the proceedings are in England and Wales, or the Secretary of State, if the proceedings are in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to appoint two additional members of the tribunal to act for that case, the Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall select and appoint two persons, who need not possess any legal qualifications or expert knowledge, to act as additional members of the tribunal for that case, and the additional members so appointed shall act therefor accordingly in addition to the president and the assessors or assessor.")—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  Regulations as to radiation of electro-magnetic energy, etc.
  (2) The said requirements shall be such requirements as the Postmaster-General thinks fit for the purpose of ensuring that the use of the apparatus does not cause undue interference with wireless telegraphy, and may in particular include—

  (a) requirements as to the maximum intensity of electro-magnetic energy of any specified frequencies which may be radiated in any direction from the apparatus while it is being used; and

  789

  (b) in the case of an apparatus the power for which is supplied from electric lines, requirements as to the maximum electromagnetic energy of any specified frequencies which may be injected into those lines by the apparatus,

  and, in so far as appears to the Postmaster-General necessary or expedient in the case of the regulations in question, different requirements may be prescribed for different circumstances and in relation to different classes or descriptions of apparatus, different districts or places and different times of use.
  4.37 p.m.
  LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL moved to add to subsection (2):
  ("Provided that nothing in this section shall render a person liable to incur any expenditure for the purpose of complying with any requirement in excess of one florin in respect of each one apparatus in his possession which is made or adapted for use for ordinary domestic purposes and is used by him for those purposes in his household and is in reasonable repair and running order.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is virtually the same as one which I put down on the Committee stage, but I have been advised that it should be inserted at a somewhat different place.
  Its intention, as I made plain previously, is to protect the ordinary domestic user, and more especially the housewife, against being forced at possibly considerable expense to make an alteration in her domestic appliances—an electric iron, an electric bedwarmer, an electric stove or any other item in the variety of electric appliances which are used nowadays in the home. The proposal is that she should find the money if it is a very small sum, but that if it is a considerable sum she should not be put to any expense over and above one florin in putting the apparatus right. At the time, the objection was raised that the interference might be due to the apparatus being out of order. I hope that this point has been met by the words at the end of the Amendment, which insist that the apparatus shall be "in reasonable repair and running order." Without some such words, anyone could have apparatus repaired at the expense of the B.B.C., or whomsoever it might be.
  When this matter was discussed in Committee, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House showed great sympathy with our point of view, and said that he would try to frame some
  790
  form of words which would avoid placing on householders or housewives hardship which ought not to be placed on them. He gave the Committee that assurance, and we were content to leave the Amendment for the time being. I hope that the House and the Government will agree that this revised Amendment now meets the case, and will assent to its insertion in the Bill. The House will remember that in Committee we discussed the somewhat vague expression "undue interference." To meet this, the Government have agreed—admittedly only in an interpretation clause, but I am sure we can trust those concerned to live up to the intention of it—that interference will not be held to be undue if to install a suppressor would cause unreasonable hardship to the user of the apparatus.
  If the Government accept the Amendment that I have put down to the Amendment later on in Clause 19, it will meet the difficulty with which I have tried to deal in Clause 19. But it will not meet the difficulty of the housewife. It would be quite impossible in every individual case to consider whether one shilling, two shillings or five shillings would cause unreasonable hardship. And even if it were possible, it would lead to endless complaints and recriminations—perhaps even to questions in Parliament! After all, the B.B.C. pay something like £3 to the Post Office to trace every individual source of interference; if to suppress the interference costs only a few shillings, surely they can take it in their stride. But if it costs more than a few shillings, surely it is an unreasonable hardship on the housewife to ask her to pay for it. The whole problem, of course, is only transitional, because manufacturers will soon cease selling apparatus which interferes with neighbours' wireless sets. I hope the House will agree to make a definite limit to the cost which domestic users can be compelled to bear and make a clean job of the matter.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cherwell.)
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I can say sincerely that I have ventured to live up to the promise that I made at an earlier stage. I have come to the conclusion, however, with sincere regret, that my method is better than that recommended by the noble Lord who has just spoken. The point is that if we take

  791
  the noble Lord's Amendment, which relates to what has gone before, his argument hinges on the words "undue interference." A suggestion was made that we might overcome the difficulty by defining "undue interference." I am afraid that I must ask your Lordships, as the noble Lord has referred to it, to consider also the Amendment in my name to Clause 19, in which we endeavour to define "undue interference." My Amendment says:
  "In considering for any of the purposes of this Act, whether, in any particular case, any interference with any wireless telegraphy caused or likely to be caused by the use of any apparatus, is or is not undue interference, regard shall be had to all the known circumstances of the case"—
  for instance, if a housewife has a carpet sweeper in good order or if it be neglected—
  "and the interference shall not be regarded as undue interference if so to regard it would unreasonably cause hardship to the person using or desiring to use the apparatus."
  I think that is a very wide and exceedingly charitable interpretation of the words "undue interference." It means that no housewife, in the circumstances which the noble Lord contemplates, and about which we all talked with sympathy, would have hardship imposed upon her.
  About the other question, I confess that I was completely convinced in the discussions which have taken place, though I know the noble Lord was not. Where there is a person with an apparatus—say, a carpet-sweeper—which is causing interference with someone else's apparatus, the carpet-sweeper may be interfering with half-a-dozen receiving sets. Thus it would be very difficult to ascertain precisely who was being interfered with and who was not. It is a new principle that we must ask the State to step in and pay the cost of adjustment if "A" has something which interferes with something belonging to "B." I think that would be opening a door which might prove to be a very wide one. If that principle is accepted, there is no inducement to anybody to attach the Gadget which I understand can be attached to an apparatus to prevent it causing undue interference because, sooner or later, the Post Office will come along and pay the piper. That might have a very widespread effect.
  792
  It is true that the housewife might be involved in a cost of four or five shillings—I am trying not to discuss the £100, that comes later on—but it is fair to say that this wide interpretation of "undue interference," is the right and fair way of meeting the difficulty. We must remember that until the interference goes beyond that interpretation, it is not interference which the housewife can be called upon to put right. It is difficult to imagine how, in the great variety of cases that might conceivably arise if there were no such check as this interpretation, we could saddle the Post Office or any State Department with the cost of adjustment. I think this is a fair way of dealing with the matter. Therefore, in view of the difficulties which would certainly be created by the noble Lord's Amendment, I hope he will not press it, and will accept my alternative in all good will.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be greatly disappointed with the response which the Leader of the House has given, particularly after the hopes he raised last time. I think he has presented the case in an entirely wrong perspective. He has spoken as though the person who is using a perfectly legitimate household article, and keeping it in good repair, is committing a nuisance. A person who commits a nuisance is liable, and nobody suggests that the State should be liable for a nuisance created by private persons. In this case, nobody is committing a nuisance. All that has happened is that, after she has bought a cleaner or an iron of a kind entirely approved and sold in every shop, which she is encouraged to buy and which she keeps in perfect repair, the housewife finds that this perfectly legitimate article interferes with a television set or, a particular kind of radio so that the owners do not see or hear so well as they would if a suppressor were installed. That is no question of a person committing a nuisance. Therefore, to my mind, the case of the State being asked to create a precedent does not arise.
  In the second place, the State already pay a good deal of money in this business. When this "heresy hunt" goes on, and the Post Office or the B.B.C. (which-

  793
  ever does it) go out with their antennæ to find out whose flat iron is interfering with the noble Lord's television set, it costs, I understand, £3 or £4 a time. Therefore, already the Post Office are paying £3 or £4 per hunt. It is not extending that precedent very far to say that they should pay the little extra for putting the apparatus into repair.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Not into repair. The noble Lord accepted that.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not into repair. I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I mean the cost for putting on an extra gadget in order to suppress interference. The Amendment about "undue interference," which the noble Viscount is proposing later, does not meet this case at all, unless he is prepared to say here and now that if it costs more than 2s. to fit a suppressor, the Postmaster-General will hold that it is not undue interference. If he means that, then we ought to amend the Bill by saving: "Any interference caused by an ordinary domestic article shall be considered for the purposes of this Act to be undue interference if to fit a suppressor would cost more than 2s." The noble Viscount does not mean that. If he does not mean that, then his Amendment about undue hardship because of cost is quite irrelevant to this point because it is inserted for a different purpose. That is put in to meet the case where the cost of doing it is on a very large scale. I must say that I think, as between two sets of people, it would be wholly unreasonable to put in an unknown charge. The noble Viscount said 4s. or 5s. I am told that to fit some of these suppressors may cost 11s., 12s. or 15s., and the article to which they would be fitted would probably cost only 30s. in the first instance. I will make the noble Viscount a sporting offer—I hope I carry your Lordships with me so soon after certain sporting events. He said it would not be more than 4s. That is 2s. snore than my noble and scientific friend has proposed. I do not want to light over 2s. If the noble Viscount will here and now say that no housewife shall be called upon to pay more than 4s.—which we can put in perfectly clear terms in the Bill, instead of the 2s. of my noble friend—for my part, I will close with that offer. Is that a firm offer?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will reply when the noble Viscount has finished his speech.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. I am not even sure that the noble Viscount is entitled to speak again. But if he will answer me now on that point, I will continue my speech.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think, by leave of the House, I am entitled to reply when the noble Lord has finished.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would prefer to know now.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I prefer to reserve my remarks until the noble Viscount has finished.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then, if I may respectfully venture to tender my advice to the House—because I am not in the position of being able to speak again—I would strongly advise the House that, unless the noble Viscount gives an absolute firm and unequivocal undertaking that 4s. is the limit, then the House should divide on this Amendment. I would remind the House of what the noble Viscount said the last time. We did carry a great deal of conviction to him then. After some agreeable compliments which he paid to our respective dialetical capacities and domestic felicities, he went on to say:
  "On this matter, there is really nothing between us. Being, as the noble Viscount properly said, a homely person, I entirely agree with the point of view which he has presented, and so does my noble friend Lord Listowel. I agree with the noble Viscount's suggestion that a householder who does not keep his apparatus in order may fairly be called upon to do so. That is quite reasonable—we accept that. It would be a hardship on a person who had bought a flat iron, or whatever it may he, and is using it bona fide, in a proper manner, if someone should go to him and say: 'This is interfering with someone else's gadget and you will have to pay us so much.'"
  That really was leading us forward, and, I thought, forward not up the garden path, but in a much happier direction. The noble Viscount went on:
  "We should want to look very carefully into the matter before we made it possible for anything of that sort to happen … we will endeavour to frame some form of words which will avoid placing any hardship upon any householder or housewife which should not be placed upon them."
  In the light of that argument, which the noble Lord gave then as his sincere opinion, having heard our observations,

  795
  I thought we were all agreed. To say now that it may be 10s. or 15s. and there shall be no limit upon the cost, is, to my mind, wholly unreasonable. There is no precedent in this, which I hope is a unique measure. It will be a diminishing measure, too, because as the new apparatus comes on the market the provision is put into the Bill that in future these articles have to be equipped with suppressors, and anyone buying a new article will buy one which meets the case. So far as putting the charge on the State goes, as I say, they already pay £3 or £4 per hunt. We pay £1 for a licence, and there are 11,000,000 licences. If we cannot agree to underwrite the wretched housewife to the extent of 4s. or 5s. in these few cases out of that £11,000,000 then I think the House should divide.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure we have all enjoyed listening to the noble Viscount. His account of the Post Office spreading about these antennæ and catching people was most delightful. At the same time, I would invite the attention of the House to what I am suggesting in order to meet him. The words in my Amendment are:
  "… undue interference if so to regard it would unreasonably cause hardship to the person using or desiring to use the apparatus."
  I think those words, "unreasonably cause hardship," are a fair Parliamentary interpretation of the undertaking that I gave. We have spent a long time searching for those words, and I think they meet the point. The noble Viscount, with his customary Parliamentary skill, naturally left out the main difficult point which we have had to consider in deciding on this form of words. If we are to accept that A has something which is a nuisance to B, C, D, E, and F, and the
  Post Office or the State have to come in and pay the cost, there ceases to be any inducement on housewives themselves, the manufacturers or anybody else. I do not think that is a fair thing to ask. I think the fair way of dealing with it is to see that the Postmaster-General does not find that anybody is causing undue interference if that finding inflicts hardship on the person concerned. I am sorry the noble Viscount is insistent upon this point, and I am afraid that I cannot give him the firm offer for which he asks. In the circumstances, I am afraid I must take the consequences.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I be allowed to add one word without joining the controversy? The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is mistaken if he thinks that the proposal to introduce some definition of what would be "undue interference" had any connection with this controversy at all.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It has every connection.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I made the proposal because it seemed to me—and I think to others—that it was just as well to explain what was meant, but it was not with reference to the housewife at all. It was merely for the purpose of showing that there might be cases where, although the interference was considerable, none the less it would not be "undue interference."
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble and learned Viscount must see that the Amendment which we are discussing refers to that specific matter.
  On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 23.

  CONTENTS

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Long, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Margesson, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Simon, V.

  Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

  Beauchamp, E.

  Swinton, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Trenchard, V.

  Llewellin, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Lloyd, L.

  Howe, E.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Blackford, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Munster, E.

  Borwick, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Charnwood, L.

  Schuster, L.

  Allenby, V.

  Cherwell, L.

  Soulbury, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  Digby, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Amwell, L.

  Marley, L.

  Boyd-Orr, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Chorley, L.

  Morrison L. [Teller.]

  Crook, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Darwen, L.

  Quibell, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Holden, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Ammon, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

  Amulree, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, before the next Amendment is moved, might I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, how it would be convenient to take these Amendments? As I see it, the next Amendments in the name of my two noble friends, and the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cherwell to the Government Amendment on Clause 19, all really raise the same points. There is the question of whether there should be a power, either of the Postmaster-General or of the tribunal, to allocate expenditure in the cases where the cost is above £100, and then of how it should be done. It would appear to me that it would raise the question whether we have to make a provision in the regulations, whether this first Amendment is unnecessary and whether it would be sufficient to have an Amendment to Clause II or Clause 19, whichever is the better place. In any case, if we could debate the whole question on the Amendment which is now being called it would be simple, if the House desires to divide, to divide on whatever issues are most appropriate to a Division.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think that that would be a very convenient way. These Amendments relate to the same subject. The method which the noble Viscount suggests would, I think, be a very sensible one. If the House is agreeable, we could have a discussion on the group of Amendments and noble Lords could then divide on either the Amendment to Clause 11 or on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, to Clause 19, and deal with them altogether.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think we should unduly
  798
  strain our Rules. It would be better to select a particular Amendment, and I suggest that we take the one to Clause 10 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "( ) The regulations made under this section shall where appropriate make provision—

  (a) for the allocation of the cost of complying with the prescribed requirements; and

  (b) as to the persons or class of persons to be liable for the whole or any part of that cost and as to the mode of recovery thereof."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move This Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Airlie, I must express regret that he is unable to be present, but owing to another important engagement it was impossible for him to be here. I will try not to go over the whole of the background to this Amendment, since it was fairly fully discussed on the last stage. The position, under the Bill, as I see it, is this. If a person, from an individual with an electric iron to the British Electricity Authority with high tension mains, is causing interference with wireless telegraphy in any form, he may have a notice served on him by the Postmaster-General ordering him to suppress or stop that interference. If he feels aggrieved or thinks it is unreasonable, he may go to the tribunal, and the tribunal have only two alternatives at the present time. One is to say to the person causing the interference that it is undue interference and that he must suppress it; the other is to say that it is not undue interference and that he need not suppress it.
  There is no provision in the Bill for the cost of suppressing the interference to be divided between more than one of the parties; it seems that either the interference has to be suppressed or that it

  799
  need not be suppressed. The object of this Amendment is to establish the principle of the allocation of the cost in certain circumstances. There is an Amendment down in my noble friend's name and also one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, which will further develop this principle. This Amendment is intended to establish the principle for a start. On the Committee stage, Amendments were moved with this object, but were withdrawn following certain assurances by the Postmaster-General that the matter would be looked into further to see whether some solution could be reached. If I may say so without disrespect in his absence, I know that I myself and other noble Lords on this side of the House were very far from convinced by the reply which he gave.
  My principal concern in moving this Amendment is with major bodies such as the electricity undertakings, because they have these high tension lines and transmitter stations and generators which are capable of causing very considerable interference. The case I have particularly in mind is this. There might be a high tension line running across country over high ground, and the Admiralty might decide that it would be desirable to set up radar on one of the hills in close proximity; or the Post Office might decide to establish a radio station near the lines. It might be absolutely essential that this station should be established there; there might be no other available point where it could be established with the same efficiency. So far as I can see, as the Bill stands at present, if it were decided by the tribunal that it was in the general interest that the station should be in that position, there is no provision for anyone to bear any of the cost of diverting the electricity line other than the electricity authority themselves. That cost may be extremely heavy.
  I have here some figures which have been supplied to me. I understand that the cost of moving one of the high tension lines of 132,000 voltage would amount to as much as £5,000 a mile in the case of diversion, or, in the case of putting it underground, to as much as £22,000 a mile. There may be other developments in the future. I understand that railways are experimenting with the
  800
  use of wireless for control, and it may well be that before long they may make extensive use of it; and it is a well known fact that, particularly in heavy country, railways and electric lines are forced to run along the bottom of valleys in close proximity. I remember some Army exercises in Scotland during the war when the plan was that Corps headquarters should move along a road through the mountains for thirty or forty miles. What had been forgotten was that there was also a high tension line which ran along the bottom of the valley for the whole distance. The result was that throughout the exercise it was completely impossible to establish any wireless contact between Corps headquarters and any of the other formations.
  I feel that it is not in every instance fair that as a result of interference the electricity authority should have to bear the cost of a diversion. I know that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are seriously concerned about the effect this Bill will have. My noble friend explained that position fully on the Committee stage. These authorities have to supply electricity in sparsely-populated areas, and they must take lines over great distances and through many areas where it may be very necessary, particularly in the interests of defence, to establish radar and wireless stations. They have a statutory duty under the Act by which they were set up to supply electricity in their area at as cheap a rate as possible. Thus, if the British Electricity Authority find that it is necessary that a line should be diverted or put underground in the interests of a wireless station, the cost will inevitably be borne by the consumer of electricity. I daresay that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack may say that such matters can be settled between the parties. Well, my Lords, this might be a family quarrel, but family quarrels are often more difficult to settle than other kinds. That has been the experience in Scotland. Schemes they have put forward have been opposed by the Post Office, and then follow many long conferences and discussions, as a result of which much time and public money is wasted.
  It is well known that it is no good expecting these things to be solved by a few friendly discussions; there must be

  801
  some power behind them to compel a settlement. I think the power to allocate the expense as between the different parties concerned would be a useful one. In many cases, it might induce the promoter of a wireless station or radar station, whether a private individual, a department or a corporation, to think again and see whether it could not be placed somewhere else, even at slightly greater expense, and thus avoid heavy expenditure on all sides. I realise that there is some doubt as to whether this first Amendment is the correct way to achieve this end. I am happy to leave that to your Lordships' decision. But what I think is absolutely essential—and I hope that other noble Lords on this side of the House will agree—is that there should be some provision in the Bill by which the cost can be borne by the different parties. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 32, at the end insert said new subsection.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I will follow the example of the noble Lord and discuss the general issue. I will try to do so as briefly as possible, as we have a Royal Commission at half past five. The noble Lord has left out of account a considerable number of important considerations. In the first place, he dealt lightly with the possibility that, in the case of this vast hydro-electric scheme, if some other Government Department (say, the Admiralty) should wish to put up a station somewhere, that would interfere with the service, and that therefore the company might have to put their lines underground, which would cause extra expense. If I may say so, that is not dealing with the realities which I imagine would occur. When the proposal was put up, of course, the Admiralty would very soon receive representations from the great company in Scotland; no doubt Post Office engineers would immediately be brought in and the differences would be settled as between the various Government Departments—as things are settled. As a result of much experience, I have found that, where there are difficulties between Departments—as will always be the case, because one does not find everybody of the same view all the time—they are settled by sensible discussion and compromise. Sometimes the
  802
  Departments have to put their differences to the Cabinet, to be settled by them.
  But in this case this great concern will not be let in for this immense cost. Look at what has to precede it. In the first place, the regulations which will determine these issues are made by the Postmaster-General after consultation with the advisory committee. If your Lordships will look at the top of page 10, you will see that:
  "The Postmaster-General may, after consultation with the advisory committee, make regulations. …"
  Who are the advisory committee? Upon the advisory committee are a number of experts, as provided for in Clause 9. They are to be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers and other expert bodies. And I may say here, in passing, that the Post Office have been in close consultation with the big business interests concerned; and they are satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as it is, and that their interests will be fully safeguarded.
  The advisory committee are to be called in to advise the Postmaster-General. The discussions will be highly technical, and will contain a number of technical words which will be understood only by those conversant with the subject. After that, there has to be something which causes "undue interference," and the Postmaster-General has to be satisfied about that. This is where my new proposal will come in. But, in addition to that point, on which the noble Lord is completely misled, if he will look at Clause 11 he will see that if any of the parties are not satisfied they can appeal to the tribunal. Before the Postmaster-General makes an enforcement order at all, he has to be satisfied that the conditions under Clause 11 have all been complied with, that
  "the use of the apparatus is likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy,"
  and that all the necessary steps have been taken. Before he can make any enforcement order, he must be satisfied that that has been done. Then he makes his order, and one of the two aggrieved parties, if they are aggrieved and cannot settle their differences between them, can then take the case to the tribunal.
  If your Lordships will look at page 12, your Lordships will see what the tribunal can then do. In this case, this tribunal would be composed of three persons.

  803
  Looking at page 12, subsection (4), paragraphs (a) and (b), the tribunal
  "if they are satisfied that the apparatus in question complies with requirements applicable to it under the regulations, shall direct the Postmaster-General to revoke the notice. …"
  Or they can go still further:
  "If they are satisfied that the said requirements ought properly to be relaxed. …"
  or that the interference would not be unreasonable or undue, they may direct the Postmaster-General to revoke or vary the notice. Therefore, every possible provision is made to meet these disputed cases, first by the character of the advisory committee, and second by the objections that have to be met before the Postmaster-General can make an enforcement order, which even then can be revoked or varied by the tribunal.
  I am asked this question. Will the cost of carrying out the order be a matter of which the tribunal can take account? I am advised that it would be. As the words that I have down here say, if it would be inflicting unreasonable hardship, the cost involved would be a matter that would have to be taken into consideration. I suggest to your Lordships that instead of putting in an arbitrary provision of the kind now proposed, the provisions of the Bill—including the three clear safeguards that I have mentioned already—are adequate. As between Government Departments I say, quite frankly, that there is nothing in it. They would enter into this scheme in the ordinary way. So far as important industrial bodies are concerned, they will be brought into consultation at the very beginning. There is ample provision for their being brought into consultation. I suggest to your Lordships that this Amendment, or the series of Amendments of which this Amendment is a part, are entirely unnecessary. I hope that your Lordships will not adopt them.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  5.30 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  Consolidated Fund (No. 1),

  804

  Tenancy of Shops (Scotland),

  Public Works (Festival of Britain).

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
  5.44 p.m.
  Report stage resumed.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords in order to facilitate the progress of our business may I say that I am advised—and I think noble Lords concerned will agree with me in this—that the first of these Amendments (the one at page 10, line 32) is not necessary for the noble Lord's purpose. The main question at issue between us, I understand, is the one arising on the Amendment at page 12, line 36. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be willing to meet our convenience by withdrawing the first Amendment. The real discussion, as I say, is on the next Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I regret that I know very little about this Bill, but I have no doubt that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, as usual, is accurate in his remarks. I hope that one of my noble friends who knows more about this measure than I do will shortly arrive, and that we shall be able to proceed, possibly, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggests.
  LORD PAKENHAM: This is a filibuster!
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I say, I really know little about this matter and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cherwell is now here.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I think it could certainly simplify matters if we had the Division—if there has to be a Division—on the next Amendment, but I have always entertained hopes of the reasonableness of noble Lords opposite. Though I have been disappointed in the past, I still trust that they will come round, and that appeals to reason will not be thrown away. I certainly think the Amendment to Clause 11 will be the best one upon which to debate this question. The

  805
  noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that there never were difficulties between, say, the Admiralty and the Hydro-Electric Board—
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I did not say that there would not be difficulties. I said that these difficulties would be capable of being composed by consultation and the application of ordinary common-sense methods.
  LORD CHERWELL: If the Hydro-Electric Board had as great confidence as the noble Viscount on that point, they would not be pressing so strongly for this Amendment. They frequently have difficulties either with the Post Office or with someone else. As things now stand, there is no incentive for the other party to try to meet the electricity concern or whatever concern it may be, because the whole of the cost will be thrown upon the owners of the transmission line or whatever other body is in question. The noble Viscount said that the Postmaster-General would have the assistance of his Advisory Committee. That is true. But that Advisory Committee will say only whether interference is caused.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Advisory Committee will advise on the regulation that will govern the issue.
  LORD CHERWELL: I do not know whether as the Bill stands the regulations can include a provision which would, for instance, make it possible to allocate the costs between the parties. That is the point at issue. All we are asking is that there should be more freedom for those people who are going to advise or, as in the case of the tribunal, to decide. As the Bill stands at present, all they can do is to say: "You must revoke or relax your regulations." They cannot say that both parties concerned should pay some appropriate fraction; they cannot allocate the cost. It is only common sense to say that they should have the freedom to say, for example, that one of the parties should pay 40 per cent. and the other party should pay 60 per cent. or whatever the proportions may be. So far as I can see, there is no freedom for the tribunal to do that. All we are asking is that the tribunal or the Postmaster-General should not just make a regulation saying, "You must either suppress
  806
  this" or "You must let it go on." They should have freedom to say: "You should suppress this and pay one-half and the other party should pay the other half"—or whatever the just proportions may be held to be in the circumstances of the case. I cannot see why anyone should resist giving them freedom to do that. If he liked, the Postmaster-General could say that 100 per cent. of the cost should be borne by one party—I do not, of course think he would be so unreasonable as to do that. But as it is you cannot say anything but that either the whole cost must be paid or the whole thing will not be allowed. Surely noble Lords will not wish to prevent freedom being allowed to allocate the cost between the parties.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I want to say just a few words on this matter, and I shall be brief because I think the issue here is a short and simple one. It is: Ought there, or ought there not, to be power to apportion costs? I am not going to follow the noble Viscount in his charming description of how united are all Government Departments. My own experience of the Admiralty in the past is that what is much more likely to happen is this. If the Admiralty wanted to put up a radar station, they would put it up and no one else would know anything about it until it was erected. They would say it was so secret that, in the interests of security, they could not tell the other Departments what they were doing. But that is not the only instance; a case might occur between a firm owning a factory and a Government Department. In such a case the firm would not be interested in the regulations; they would be interested in what was to be done in a specific case, which cannot be settled by the regulations unless we grant this power. There ought to be power to share the costs fairly between the persons concerned.
  I know that I am right in saying that unless that power is giver by the Bill, the power will not be there. I think that is common ground. It is true that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is proposing an Amendment to give the tribunal power to say that the cost is so heavy that this thing ought not to be done. That might be the worst possible solution. Possibly the right solution is to say that the cost is too heavy to impose on an under-

  807
  taking and the fair thing is to share it out between the undertaking and the Admiralty or the Air Ministry or the Post Office. Unless we put in a provision to that effect, that could not be done, and one of two things might happen: either the whole cost would fall unfairly or, what is more likely to happen under the noble Viscount's own Amendment, what ought to be done would not be done because the tribunal had not the power to apportion the costs. As a former Minister, I honestly cannot understand why the Government do not jump at this Amendment. If I were a Service Minister again I would undoubtedly say that the fair thing to do is to share the cost. If that is the view of the House, specific provision should be put in the Bill.
  Where ought it to come in? With great respect, I think it is unnecessary to insist upon the Amendment now before the House, because this is not a case of saying that "regulations shall provide"; it is a case of the tribunal having the power. If the tribunal have power to frame regulations, regulations will be framed in accordance with that power. Nor do I like the proposal that the tribunal shall have this power under a modification of the definition clause. It seems to me that if we are to give it, we ought to say straightforwardly in the appropriate place in the Bill that the tribunal is to have this power. If I may venture to advise, I suggest that this Amendment should be withdrawn as unnecessary, the House should pass the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, on Clause 11, and then it would be unnecessary to press the Amendment to Clause 19 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. If the House agrees with that suggestion of what we ought to do, I think the Leader of the House will agree that what I have suggested is the practical way of giving effect to it.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I agree that the noble Viscount's suggestion as to the procedure on these Amendments is the practical way of dealing with them. As he says, what is now in question is the power of the tribunal to do something. It is not a matter of regulations and therefore the appropriate place to decide this issue is, as he says, on Clause 11. I would point out to
  808
  the noble Lord that after prolonged consultations with the Post Office and their advisers on this very point, with a sincere endeavour to meet the case, I have been convinced that my Amendment about undue interference, coupled with the power of the tribunal and with subsection 4 (b) of Clause 11, adequately covers anything that might be required. I am advised that this matter is deliberately left open and without prejudice, so that the tribunal can take into account any consideration that is material to the issue and, in consequence of the evidence put before them, may revoke the notice or vary it. That is why it is left in this completely indefinite form. I am advised that, after discussions with the representatives of the large business interests concerned, those interests are satisfied that this is the sensible way of dealing with the difficulty. At all events, I have said what I have to say on the subject. Surely noble Lords do not wish to prolong the discussion unduly. If we take the line recommended by the noble Viscount, I am sure the House will be indebted to him.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that I have listened to what he said with great respect and all humility, but I am afraid that what he has said does not reassure us on the point. I think I can say that on this side of the House we are sure that there should be some provision for sharing the costs. We are equally convinced that under the Bill as it stands there cannot be provision for sharing the costs. I agree with the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that this is not the right clause to amend, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11:
  Enforcement of regulations as to use of apparatus
  (4) On any such reference, the tribunal shall hear the Postmaster-General and the person at whose instance the reference was made and any other person appearing to them to be interested who desires to be heard, and has, in accordance with the rules regulating the procedure of the tribunal, procured himself to be made a party to the reference, and—

  809

  (a) if they are satisfied that the apparatus in question complies with requirements applicable to it under the regulations, shall direct the Postmaster-General to revoke the notice;

  (b) if they are satisfied that the said requirements ought properly to be relaxed in relation to the apparatus, may direct the Postmaster-General to revoke the notice or to vary it in such manner as may be specified in the direction,

  and the Postmaster-General shall revoke or vary the notice accordingly:
  5.59 p.m.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment to Clause 11.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 36, at end insert:
  "(c) if they are satisfied that compliance with the said requirements or those requirements as directed to be varied, would impose unreasonable cost (not being less than one hundred pounds) upon the person having possession of or any interest in the apparatus they may if they think fit direct the Postmaster-General to allocate the cost in such proportion among
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 37, after ("notice") insert ("or allocate the cost")—(Lord Polwarth.)
  such persons or class of persons and in such manner as may be specified in the direction"
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I have already replied to this Amendment.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, may I say a word before the question is put? It occurred to me that this Amendment would be much improved if the words "not being less than £100" were removed. So far as I see, it would then cover the whole of the Amendment on the question of 2s. on which we have already divided. I did not think that Amendment a reasonable one, because 2s. to-day may be 10s. to-morrow, so I followed the Government into the Lobby. But if we remove the figure of £100 from this Amendment, it would cover the housewife and everybody else.
  On Question, Whether the said paragraph shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 17.

  CONTENTS

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Margesson, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Samuel, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Willingdon, M.

  Simon, V.

  Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

  Swinton, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Llewellin, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Ailwyn, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Amulree, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Munster, E.

  Belstead, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Blackford, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Charnwood, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Allenby, V.

  Cherwell, L.

  Schuster, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Soulbury, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Long, V.

  Digby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Darwen, L.

  Morrison, L. [Teller.]

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Henderson, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Holden, L.

  Quibell, L.

  Ammon, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

  Crook, L.

  Marley, L.

  Winster, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  6.5 p.m.
  Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
  VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
  "(5) In considering for any of the purposes of this Act, whether, in any particular case, any interference with any wireless, telegraphy caused or likely to be caused by the use of any apparatus, is or is not undue interference, regard shall be had to all the known circumstances of the case and the interference shall not be regarded as undue interference if so to

  811
  regard it would unreasonably cause hardship to the person using or desiring to use the apparatus."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment extending the definition of "undue interference," to which I have previously referred. I think it is acceptable. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Addison.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Viscount one question on this Amendment. Can he say whether under this Amendment the tribunal can allocate costs?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I can say that under Clause 11 (4) (b) the tribunal can take account of the relative costs in deciding whether something is hardship or not, or whether the order should be varied. The Amendment does not say that they can allocate the cost.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has just said, and of the fact that the Amendment was added to Clause 11, I do not propose to move my Amendment to his Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule [Procedure in relation to suspension and revocation of authorities to wireless personnel]:
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the next Amendment is formal. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 48, leave out ("persons") and insert ("person").—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Provisions as to the Appeal Tribunal]:
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the Amendments to the Second Schedule are consequential upon the change in the tribunal which has been agreed to. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, leave out lines 8 to 25 and insert—

  ("1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the members of the appeal tribunal, other than any members appointed to act for
  812
  a particular case, shall hold office for such period as may be determined at the time of their respective appointments.

  (2) Any member of the tribunal may at any time by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor resign his appointment.

  (3) If a member of the tribunal becomes a member of the advisory committee, his office shall thereupon become vacant.

  (4) The Lord Chancellor may declare the office of any member of the tribunal vacant on the ground of incapacity to perform the duties thereof, or on the ground of misconduct.

  (5) If any member of the tribunal becomes bankrupt or makes an arrangement with his creditors, his office shall thereupon become vacant.

  (6) In the application of the preceding provisions of this paragraph to members appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State, references to the Lord President, Lord Chief Justice or Secretary, of State, as the case may be, shall be substituted for the references to the Lord Chancellor.")—(Viscount Addison.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 24, after ("president") insert ("or, in a case where additional members have been appointed, the decision of all, or, in the event of a difference of opinion, of the majority of, the members of the tribunal other than the assessors,").—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
  6.9 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 11 [Expenses of local authority supplying water in district of another authority]:
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment, made necessary by the proposed insertion of a new clause after Clause 12. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 44, leave out ("next following section") and insert ("two next succeeding sections").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, may I point out that there is a misprint on the

  813
  Marshalled List and that this Amendment is to page 7, line 29? The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, will recognise this Amendment, which puts right an inconsistency in the wording to which he drew attention in Committee. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 29, leave out ("could") and insert ("should").—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord in having corrected one misprint and on having committed another?
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 12 to insert the following new clause:
  Temporary provisions as to defrayal of expenses where requisite information etc., not available.
  13.—(1) If the Secretary of State, on a representation made to him by one of the authorities concerned, is satisfied that it will be impracticable for a supplying authority, notwithstanding the exercise by them of all due diligence, to obtain the information required to enable them in the year beginning on the appointed day to allocate within the required time their expenses in supplying water in the district or part of the district of another local authority and in their own district in manner provided by subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act and to furnish such information as under subsection (5) of section twelve of this Act they may be required to furnish, he may, subject to the provisions of this section, make an order modifying the provisions of this Part of this Act in relation to the defrayal of the expenses of that supplying authority.
  (2) An order made under this section shall provide that the expenses of the supplying authority in supplying water in the district or part of the district of another local authority and in their own district shall in the year beginning on the appointed day be defrayed—

  (a) as to such part of the said expenses as is equal to the total product of the water rate levied by the supplying authority in the district of that other authority in the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, 1948, by that other authority; and

  (b) as to the remainder of the said expenses, by the supplying authority.

  (3) An order made under this section shall provide for the issue by the supplying authority to any other authority to whom part of the said expenses are under the order allocated as aforesaid, of a requisition for the payment by that other authority of that part of the said expenses and any requisition so issued shall have the like force and effect as a requisition issued under subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act:
  Provided that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act any domestic water rate levied by a local authority to whom a requisition is issued in pursuance of an order made under this section shall in so far as it falls to be levied in respect of premises within the limits of supply of the supplying authority be levied only in respect of premises in respect of which a water rate was levied by the supplying authority in the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, 1948.
  (4) Where a supply of water for domestic purposes was provided in the year beginning on 16th May, 1948, by a supplying authority to premises in the district of another local authority and no payment otherwise than by way of a charge calculated by reference to the amount of water consumed or payable under an agreement or otherwise was recovered in that year by the supplying authority in respect of that supply, an order made under this section in relation to the defrayal of the expenses of that supplying authority shall provide that, notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act or in the principal Act, the supplying authority shall, for the purpose of defraying that part of their said expenses falling to be defrayed by them, be entitled to recover in the year beginning on the appointed day a charge calculated or payable as aforesaid in respect of that supply.
  (5) An order made under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is introduced in order to meet the difficulties of the Dundee Corporation, to which reference was made in Committee. I think the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, was the first member of your Lordships' House to raise this point. The Corporation supply water within the districts of seven other authorities, and they have made representations that it will be impracticable for them to put into operation the provisions of Clauses 11 and 12 for 1949 and 1950. These clauses would require the Corporation to be able to say exactly what houses outside the city they supply with water. This precise information has not hitherto been required, and will take some time to obtain. The object of the new clause (which I may tell your Lordships has been accepted in principle at a meeting of the eight local authorities concerned, held in Dundee as recently as March 22) is to provide a means by which the general provisions of the Bill regarding rating and requisitioning can be put into effect on the appointed day in the Dundee area, but at the same time modified where it would be otherwise impossible to operate them. Although the new clause has been drafted with the Dundee

  815
  problem in mind, it is generally worded and it will be open to any authority to make representations to the Secretary of State for an order under it modifying the provisions of Clause 11. If your Lordships would desire me to go through the clause in detail I should be willing to do so. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 18, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Airlie who drew attention to the fact that Dundee was being, inadvertently I think, asked to do the impossible, I would like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this clause, which meets the difficulty. In addition, it is a useful additional clause for any other authority who may be similarly situated. I do not think we shall ask the noble Lord at this time of night to go through the clause in detail. It has been agreed by the authorities, and I know that it is acceptable to my noble friend.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16:
  Transport and electricity hereditaments
  (2) Where a water rate was in the year 1947–48 levied in respect of premises being a railway or canal hereditament or a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority, an Area Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and no charge calculated by reference to the amount of water consumed was made, no charge by way of meter or otherwise shall be made in the year 1948–49 or in any subsequent year during which the premises are occupied as such a hereditament as aforesaid in respect of a supply of water (whether for domestic purposes or otherwise) to those premises by a local water authority.
  6.15 p.m.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to add to subsection (2):
  "Provided that the local water authority shall have the option in the year 1948–49 or in any subsequent year of making in respect of any supply of water to those premises a charge calculated by reference to the amount of water consumed thereon reduced by any sum levied as water rate in the year 1947–48."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will be as brief as possible in moving this
  816
  Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that on the last stage of the Bill we were rather concerned about the position of certain nationalised undertakings, such as electricity works and railways, who were being supplied with water by local authorities and were paying for that through the global sum which they paid by way of rating. As a result, there might be cases where the undertaking could draw a considerably greater quantity of water and still not pay any greater sum to the local authority. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, pointed out quite rightly that any arrangement for an additional rate in respect of extra water would in fact mean that the undertaking was paying twice for their water. We have tried to get round this difficulty—I admit it is not a very successful effort—by providing that, where a local authority decides that one of these undertakings shall have its water supply metered to it, the supply shall be measured to it and it would pay accordingly, less the amount of any sum which was rated on it for water beforehand; so that in fact it would be paying only once for the water. That would give a fair return to the local authority who might be called upon to supply a much greater volume of water. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has given a brief but completely fair description of what was the position in regard to this Amendment, and at the end of the Committee stage I promised to look at it again. I can assure him that I have done so, with the result that I recognise that there is a difficulty here, inasmuch as an agreed sum is being paid by the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. As a result of the working out of that system, it may be that some local authorities will be rather worse off and others better off. The noble Lord's Amendment, however, provides only, if I may say so, a lopsided solution, inasmuch as it proposes to compensate those who may be worse off but not to take away anything from those who may be better off as a result of the arrangement. I have done my best to look into it, and the conclusion is that the local authorities

  817
  cannot have it both ways. The subsection as it stands, coupled with the provisions of the 1948 Act, represent a fair settlement for both the local authorities and the British Transport Commission and Electricity Boards. The Amendment proposed would be unfair to the latter, and I am sorry that I cannot accept it, the principal reason being that, in my opinion and in the opinion of those who advised me, the present Bill is not an appropriate place for the revision of the principles of the 1948 Act which was so recently accepted by Parliament. Obviously the remedy for the grievances to which the noble Lord has drawn the attention of the House cannot be in this Bill, but must be by an amendment of the 1948 Act. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not be disposed to press his Amendment.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I can see that the noble Lord is clearly unhappy about this. He realises that there is a hardship involved.
  LORD MORRISON: There may be.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: To take an example, suppose that Perth is doing well out of supplying water to an electrical or railway undertaking, and that Aberdeen is doing badly; it is no consolation to Aberdeen that Perth is doing well, and I cannot see Aberdeen "sitting down under it." I think they would probably complain most vehemently. The noble Lord said that the local authorities cannot have it both ways, but each authority has it only one way at a time. This is the kind of difficulty we are running into in this country with our schemes of nationalisation. It draws into sharp notice what will happen to local authorities when the payments to the nationalised undertaking are on a global basis. But there is no provision for compensating a local authority in whose area the nationalised undertaking increases its operations and uses more water. As I have said, I can see that the noble Lord is unhappy about this matter, and my noble friend will agree that this is hardly the place where we can amend the 1948 Act. But I trust that what has been raised to-night will be sufficient to draw to the notice of the Government the anomolies which are likely to arise through this difficulty.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. He
  818
  appreciates the difficulty, and I can see that it would be a question of amending the 1948 Act. I think, however, that we should watch this position and see what the effect in fact is. Various local authorities may see in the course of a year or two whether in fact it is going to have a serious effect; and no doubt at the end of that time it may be possible to make some suitable alteration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  PALESTINIAN ARAB REFUGEES
  6.21 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK rose to call attention to the condition of the Palestinian refugees; and to move for Papers. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, at this late hour in the evening I should have hesitated about bringing this matter before your Lordships had it not been one of such extreme urgency. I am anxious to draw the attention of the House to the condition of a large number of refugees who have fled from their homes in Palestine during recent weeks. We have in recent years become so accustomed to stories of appalling hardship and starvation, to the ghastly massacre of Jews, to the millions of refugees who have poured into the Western zones of Germany, and to other such events, that they have almost an atrophying effect on the minds of many; and nowadays we estimate disasters by millions, rather than by hundreds of thousands. These refugees from Palestine are numbered in hundreds of thousands rather than in millions. But they have no representative in Parliament or in the United Nations; they have no great propaganda organisation able to call attention to their distress. It is for these reasons that I venture to put before the House to-night the appalling nature of the present problem.
  The problem has arisen in this way. When it was known that the British were giving up their Mandate in Palestine a certain number of well-to-do Arabs left the country in good time. Rather later, a certain number of Christian Jews were smuggled out of the country, by underground ways, to save their lives. But the great mass of the Arabs still remained in

  819
  their homes—at any rate the womenfolk with their children. Then there came the massacre at Deir Yassin. The actual number massacred there is still uncertain, but it is known that at least 150 women and children were murdered, many of them mutilated, and their bodies thrown into a well. This was a deliberate and cold-blooded act of terrorism. It is true that it was repudiated by the Jewish authorities—just as they had previously repudiated the murder of our two sergeants and, later, repudiated the murder of Count Bernadotte. But this massacre had this effect: the news of it spread rapidly from village to village; some other outrages on a smaller scale took place; and there commenced a panic-stricken exodus of tens of thousands of Arabs from the homes which they and their forebears had occupied for hundreds of years. They left their homes at almost a moment's notice, carrying with them all the property they could take, perhaps a little jewellery and money. They were robbed of this on the way, and, they reached places of safety—as they regarded them—entirely destitute.
  It is difficult to ascertain the exact number, but I think it is generally recognised that there are some 800,000 Palestinian refugees. In the Economist of February 19 it was stated that of these refugees there are 320,000 in Arab Palestine, 285,000 in Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq, and 210,000 in the Gaza area. Since then, for various reasons, there has been an increase in the number, and most of the refugees are in a condition of absolute destitution. Two hundred thousand of them are living in caves and beneath wattle shelters, more than 50,000 in catacombs under an amphitheatre; thousands more are living in holes which they have dug in the ground. Where tents are available, they have been occupied by fifty persons instead of the ten for whom they were intended. These people have little food or clothing; disease is rife among them. Their sanitary conditions in any case would probably fall far below those accepted in the West, and when these masses of people are crowded together, dysentry becomes rife. Smallpox and other diseases spread among the people, and it has been stated on good authority that in one district 220 women and children were dying every day. I do
  820
  not wish to use any material which might be regarded as sensational, but some of the detailed accounts that I have heard from reliable people, working among these refugees, I can describe only as absolutely sickening in their horror. Those are the actual facts.
  Various efforts have been made to relieve the situation. Great credit should be given to the Transjordan Government, although that is only a small State, for what they are doing to help these destitute refugees. Out of their small budget that Government are devoting a considerable sum for the help of the refugees, and they have also sent doctors. There are also a number of voluntary societies who are doing their best; the Church Missionary Society have thrown open their hospitals and used their doctors to attend to the medical needs of these people. The Orthodox Church have opened their convents, and the Roman Catholics have done good work, as have the Quakers. A large number of voluntary organisations have also been doing what they could to alleviate the distress of these people—our own British Red Cross Society have been doing admirable work. When all this has been done, however, it is totally inadequate, as these bodies themselves recognise, to meet the magnitude of the problem.
  Naturally the question arises: What is being done by the United Nations? The United Nations have a special responsibility in this matter through their lack of courage and wisdom in dealing with this whole problem of Palestine. They have voted considerable sums of money, and have asked their member nations to raise that money. Great Britain has promised £1,000,000.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Given.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Yes, given £1,000,000, on the understanding that other nations did likewise—but that condition was withdrawn, in view of the urgency of the situation. I am anxious to know what the other nations have done. I should like to know what the United States, with their warm-hearted philanthropy, have done to help these people. What sums have been promised by the other nations concerned?
  Here I should like to raise a specific point—of which, I fear, I have given only

  821
  brief notice to the noble Lord who is to reply. I understand that if some of the money which has been voted by the British Government could be placed at the disposal of the British Red Cross—say, something like £75,000—the whole of it would be spent on securing that the necessary medical and personal help was made available, while the British Red Cross would continue out of its own funds to pay for its staff. I hope it may be possible for the Government in some way to respond to that offer. The need for help, the need for personnel, the need for medical supplies, food, blankets and so on, is simply overwhelming.
  Therefore, the first question I ask the noble Lord who is to reply is: Can he give us information as to what the United Nations are doing at the present time, and what is being done generally to help these people in their immediate needs? Perhaps I ought to point out that, when the United Nations decided to set aside a certain sum of money for these Palestinian refugees, they did so on the assumption that the number would not exceed 500,000. Since then, the number has gone up to 800,000. I also want to ask whether the noble Lord can tell us anything about a long-term policy. These people are not only destitute; they are hopeless. Until a few months ago, the majority of them were living in the villages and houses in which their fathers and grandfathers had lived, in some cases centuries before. They have been driven out of the land which they have occupied for nearly 1,000 years. These people are asking: "When are we going back to our homes?" As a matter of fact, in many cases their homes have been taken over by the State of Israel and given to various Jewish immigrants. In many cases, their homes have been completely destroyed. In other cases, they have been looted.
  Among these refugees, I am afraid there are something like 10,000 who come from the more or less professional classes. Many of them were living in a part of Jerusalem. Their houses are now standing in ruins, and where they are not ruined, they have been taken over by the Jewish State and handed out to Jews. There is little chance of those people ever being able to go back again. But what about the great mass of peasants, a people who have an intense love of their
  822
  village and their land? It is assumed in certain quarters that they will never again be able to go back to Palestine. Perhaps some of them would dread going back. There may be a number of them who, for many reasons, would prefer not to go back, but there are a large number who are filled with a passionate desire to return to their homes and who have not yet learned that in many quarters it is regarded as almost impossible that they should return. I think it would be breaking every law of justice if the United Nations accepted the position that these people must be permanently expelled from their homes.
  What would we in this country feel, for instance, if the people of Devonshire were driven away from their homes and their houses were occupied by Polish Jews? We could imagine the intense feeling among the people. It is an act of gross injustice if the United Nations accept the position that these people, driven away by terror, are never to be allowed to return to their homes again. There is the well-known phrase in St. Augustine's book The City of God, in which he says that
  "a nation without righteousness is a great brigandage."
  A nation which by force drives away people from the land so that it may occupy the land itself does, indeed, come very easily under that term "a great brigandage."
  I hope that the Jews themselves in Palestine will realise not only the harm that they will be doing to their own reputation but the dangers to which they will expose themselves in the future if they make no attempt to reconcile those people. When we look back to the Old Testament, to history, we see that the little Kingdoms of Judah and Israel rarely had independence. Most of their time they were fighting, and fighting very bravely, against their immediate neighbours. Time after time they were brought under subjection and then, led by some great leader, they secured their freedom again. When that period passed, they were perpetually intriguing with the powers on either side of them, and then becoming the satellite States of one of the great Powers, Syria or Egypt.
  At the moment, the State of Israel is in a relatively strong position; it is useless for anyone to deny that. It has

  823
  become a State which, for the sake of the world, we hope may be a settled State and not a centre of perpetual disturbance and intrigue. The Jews have secured that State partly, no doubt, through the courage and the enthusiasm of their adherents, but also through the financial help of the United States and the political assistance both of the United States and of Russia. The new State of Israel cannot rest assured that in the next twenty-five years or so it will receive the same support from both Russia and the United States. It may then be left to its own resources, to defend its own borders by its own strength. Round about it, there will be tens of thousands of Arabs, becoming much more disciplined and united than they are now, filled with a passionate desire for revenge, to recover the territory which they have lost. It would be well for the stability of this State if now, while there is time, it shows a conciliatory attitude towards these Palestinian refugees.
  Count Bernadotte, in almost his last words in his statement on the refugees, said:
  "I believe that for the international community to accept its share of responsibility for the refugees of Palestine is one of the minimum conditions for the success of its efforts to bring peace to that land."
  We all desire to see peace in Palestine. We all hope that the present negotiations may result in a permanent peace. But there is no hope of a permanent peace if there remains this sore of bitterness on the part of the refugees. At present, these unhappy people are destitute and hopeless. The immediate need is to save them from death by disease or starvation and, second only to this, is the importance of giving them hope for the future. I beg to move for Papers.
  6.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, has asked me to say how deeply he regrets that, owing to indisposition (which I hope is only temporary), he is unable to take part in this debate. In his absence, I wish to say a few words to support the moving appeal which has just been made by the most reverend Primate, that everything possible may be done, short-term and long-term, to alleviate the tragic plight of these Arab refugees, at least 800,000 in number. Their plight, their tragedy, is
  824
  no less moving and no less urgent because similar influxes of refugees have followed on other great political changes. That precedent, if it can be called a precedent, does not in any way lessen the responsibility of the world and of the United Nations to find a solution. Therefore, I am sure we must all, both in this House and in the country, welcome the initiative which the most reverend Primate has taken this evening, and which is so much in accord with the highest and longest traditions of your Lordships' House.
  As the most reverend Primate recognised, considerable efforts have been made. The United Nations has made its appeal, I think for 32,000,000 dollars as a minimum, and I believe 21,000,000 dollars have been promised. I am glad that His Majesty's Government did not make their contribution conditional upon the resolution being passed but found £1,000,000 right away. I think I am right in saying that the United States Congress has passed, or certainly has in passage, a Bill contributing another 16,000,000 dollars. The little State of Transjordan, always so loyal and with so broadminded a ruler, are trying to make a contribution which, in relation to their poor and sterile country, is, as the most reverend Primate has said, very remarkable and an example to others. These sums, large as they are and many of them made by countries undergoing difficult times themselves, are evidence of the extent to which this tragedy has stirred the imagination of a world too accustomed to tragedies of this kind. But, even so, and even if more money is forthcoming (as it must be if it is needed), it is all, at best, a palliative to keep the wolf from the door for a few more months. That must be done, but what is needed is a permanent solution of this problem. What these poor people want is not relief camps but homes—and their own homes if they can possibly get back to them.
  In the twenty years or so between the two wars the League of Nations was continually faced with the problem of refugees, not in one continent alone. The solution was sought to find some place, some city of refuge to which they could go. The continents of the world were scoured to find such a place—Uganda, British Guiana, and places at the upper reaches of the Amazon—and yet, in the long run, it generally came back to this: that the refugees, if they could not get

  825
  back to their own countries, must be absorbed more or less where they found themselves. Absorption is impossible in the present case. They have found in this arid land only a temporary resting place for their tired feet. It is quite impossible that Transjordan should be able to absorb them all. As the most reverend Primate has said, this is a problem essentially for the United Nations as a whole. I do not see what this country can do alone and, whatever may be our opinions as to the handling by this Government of the Palestinian question generally, I certainly think it fair to say that the Government have not been behind in this matter. They were not responsible and they have done their best in pressing upon the United Nations the urgency of this matter, and have set an example in finding money themselves.
  This is a problem which the United Nations as a whole must tackle, but there are two bodies of opinion to whom a special appeal can be made—namely, the new State of Israel, and the surrounding Arab States. Between them they can do more than anyone to alleviate the misery of these unfortunate people. This catastrophe is a by-product of the conflict between Jews and Arabs and, so long as that conflict continues—indeed, until real peace is established—the refugee problem will persist. The tragedy is one which should touch the hearts of all thinking Jews in particular. They, more than any other race in the world, have known the miseries of exile and of persecution. It would indeed be a strange thing (which surely they would not wish) that the first results of the establishment of a Jewish State should be that other human beings were to suffer some of the worst sufferings which Jews themselves have ever experienced in their own persecution.
  My Lords, I would echo what the most reverend Primate has said on a lower ground—a more material ground. I have known these countries and their problems, and for some years was responsible for the administration of the Mandated Territories. In the long run—and it is not such a long run—the State of Israel is dependent upon the surrounding Arab countries. They may win a battle here and there, but that is not economic security. I doubt whether it is physical security. There is no doubt at all that that State, economically precarious in
  826
  any case, for all the marvellous things which the Jews have done there, is dependent for its exports, certainly in its industrial life, on the adjoining Arab countries. Therefore, on the lowest ground, this is in their interest. Let them remember also that in the past Jews have lived happily, peacefully and prosperously in Arab lands. Many of your Lordships in the old days knew such places as the City of Baghdad. There you found great Jewish populations conducting their trade and being good friends with their neighbours. I myself remember, and shall always carry as a memory, what I thought and hoped was the ultimate solution in Palestine, where the two races had to live together—namely, the old colonies which were established long before the Balfour Declaration or the National Home by Baron Edmond de Rothschild. Those Colonies succeeded and prospered, because Jew and Arab lived together in mutual confidence and mutual dependence. I am sure that alike their moral duty and material interest should urge the Jews to do what they can to relieve the position which they have created for these Arabs.
  The Arab States themselves are equally directly interested in doing what they can for the men, women and children of their own race. If only peace and harmony can be restored this problem will solve itself. And indeed, no real, no lasting, solution can come without such an enduring settlement. Therefore it is to that real and enduring settlement that all the efforts, the moral and physical forces—and they are tremendous—of the United Nations should be directed. In the meantime, while that is made the main objective, whatever can be done to relieve this temporary—I hope it is only temporary—tragedy, should be done. I can assure His Majesty's Government that in anything they can do, either by way of effective action in the United Nations or on their own part, they will receive the unqualified support of us all.
  6.50 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am sure that I am, speaking for all noble Lords on these Benches when I say that we thank the most reverend Primate for having brought before us this calamitous tale of these refugees in the Arab States who come from Palestine. I do not want to go now into any question of the

  827
  past, nor yet into any question relating to the long distant future. There are many noble Lords who can do that much more effectively than I can. I would like to confine myself to the immediate problem in front of us, and to say a few words from the point of view of the Red Cross with which I have been working for a very long time. There are just one or two considerations which I would like to mention in that connection. One of the first and most important things about any form of help which these people are to receive from the Red Cross is that that help must be given extremely promptly, and by people in the field who know what is wanted. That is why I support the most reverend Primate's plea that a certain amount of the money which the British Government have already put down should be given direct to the Red Cross who do their own work in the field. The refugees in Transjordan have been assigned to the care of the British Red Cross by the International League of Red Cross Societies. What I fear is that if there is not something in the way of a direct allocation the money will be collected and allocated (some of it, at any rate) to the League of Red Cross Societies. Once that sort of thing begins, the money is caught up in the bureaucratic whirl, and some time elapses before it is finally released to the people to whom it was intended to go.
  The British Red Cross, as I say, have been given charge of the work in Transjordan. It is a tiny country of only 400,000 inhabitants, but the number of refugees already amount to about 220,000. That is a figure which I obtained from the Red Cross about a fortnight ago. Of that total, about 220 die every day. They die of starvation and disease, because there are no drugs with which to treat them. They are afflicted with dysentry, malaria, smallpox, beri-beri and various wasting diseases connected with gradual starvation. The British Red Cross authorities have done as much as they can. They have established one small hospital, which is already very much overcrowded. They have several dispensaries working in some of the biggest camps for the refugees in Transjordan, and the work is proceeding. But the Red Cross needs money more than anything else. It can provide the staff if it is given the money
  828
  to buy the drugs and the food. It does not want money to pay staff—it can pay its own staff, I am sure. Therefore, I strongly support the suggestion made by the most reverend Primate that some of the money from the British Government's £1,000,000 should be given to the British Red Cross.
  There is one other point upon which I would like to touch. I think that the money from the American Government has already been paid into the pool. I was speaking to some of the Red Cross authorities this morning, and they told me they thought that 16,000,000 dollars had already been paid in. That is certainly encouraging. But the British people and the British Government have for a long time had a great interest in the Middle East. Apart from the purely political side, we have been interested in the people of the Middle East, interested, in a friendly and paternal way, in their difficulties for very many years. I feel that the time has now come when there should be a great response, both from the British Government and from voluntary sources, to help these people in their trouble. There are one or two funds established, and the Transjordan Government have done good work, so far as they can. A fund has been started by Jews in Great Britain who are collecting money for this purpose, and various other sums have been raised. What we can do at the present time to assist these people in the Middle East will help to show them that we still remain, though poor, a great Power and a humane Power. What we can do to help these refugees will certainly redound to our credit in the long run. I support very warmly the most reverend Primate's Motion.
  6.56 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I should like, very briefly, to support the most reverend Primate and the other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of his Motion. This problem seems, in a way, to be two problems. There is, first of all, the immediate problem with which the noble Lord who has just sat down has dealt. Of course, the first thing that arises on that matter is the question of money which is so urgently needed. The United Nations considered that for a period of nine months—that is to say, until the coming August—a sum of 32,000,000 dollars, or some £8,000,000,

  829
  would be the minimum necessary. That was on the basis of an estimate of 500,000 refugees, but, as the most reverend Primate has pointed out, the number to-day is much nearer 800,000. Of that money, as we know, certainly not all, or anything like all, has yet been received, though I should be glad to hear from the noble Lord who is going to reply to this debate how much has, up to this moment, been received for these purposes. Even if all the money is received, it is money which was to last only until August, 1949. Presumably, after that, more money will be required.
  That brings me to the more important question which, as other noble Lords have said, is that of resettlement, and the urgency of tackling that matter, because the longer we put off a plan for the resettlement of these unfortunate people the more of them will perish from starvation, disease and other causes and the more difficult will our problem become as time goes on. In addition, more and more money will be required to be spent, not on curing this terrible situation but merely as a palliative. Therefore I feel that there is urgent necessity for a final plan to cope with this terrible problem. The question arises as to where these refugees are to go. I agree with the most reverend Primate that those who wish to return to their homes should, most definitely, be allowed by the State of Israel to do so. But I am not so certain that many of them will be able to return to their homes, or indeed that all of them will now desire to do so. That being the case, we are still left with an enormous problem. After all, 800,000 refugees is a quarter of the total population of Iraq, nearly as much as the total population of Syria and three times the total population of Transjordan.
  When one considers that these people have to be housed and employment has to be found for them, one realises the immensity of the problem with which the United Nations are faced. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, pointed out that much that has been achieved has been largely due to people not waiting for the United Nations but getting on with the job on their own, and for the immediate problem I think that is the best solution; but any long-term plan of resettlement is beyond the scope of private individuals and private organisations. Only the United Nations can make any such plan.
  830
  I hope some plan is going to emerge and that the noble Lord who is to reply may be able to give us some information on that point.
  In conclusion, I should like to say a word about the responsibility for this plan. As I have said, a plan of this magnitude can be put into effect only by an organisation like the United Nations and it is clearly the responsibility of the United Nations. But I feel very strongly that, though overall responsibility lies with the United Nations, that is no excuse for individual nations to feel that they have rid themselves of the problem and need not bother any more. Many nations have a great responsibility. Noble Lords have referred to the responsibility of the State of Israel. I believe it is not only her responsibility but in her own interests that she should show an attitude of generosity and co-operation in this matter. The United States has also a considerable responsibility for recent policy in Palestine and for what has occurred, and I am glad to see that up to date she has responded to her responsibility with her usual generosity.
  As an Englishman, I feel that we ourselves have a great responsibility for these Arab refugees. I do not wish at this hour and on such an occasion to rake up controversies of the past, but I would like to take the minds of your Lordships back to the year 1921 when, at the same time as we proclaimed our adherence to the idea of a National Home for the Jews, we promised that this would be achieved without in any way prejudicing the civil and religious liberties of the remaining peoples in Palestine. I do not think I need emphasise the fact that there are very few civil liberties left to these unfortunate people who are refugees in this land. We have a responsibility in seeing that these people are looked after and we should not "let up" until this has been done. It may be said by the Government that the ultimate decision does not rest with them and must rest with the United Nations. But the Government are members of the United Nations and I sincerely hope that they feel as I do about this matter; that they will use every endeavour in their power to promote a speedy solution of this problem, and will continue their efforts until the misery and suffering which these people have so unfairly incurred is relieved.
  7.4 p.m.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, enough has already been said to-night about the desperate plight of the Arab refugees and the urgent need for immediate assistance on a large scale. I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but I should like to support very strongly the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who has said that although Britain has contributed much already to the welfare of the refugees, she cannot in any way shirk her responsibilities towards the Arab countries, as these obligations were laid down in the Balfour Declaration. Unless something is done immediately there will be disastrous economic effects on the whole of the Middle East, and the Middle East is an area in which this country is intensely interested, not only in regard to oil but also strategically.
  I want to examine briefly the situation as it will probably be seen from the Jewish point of view. Israel has just finished fighting a war and she is bankrupt. The whole of her recovery depends on her establishing commercial, industrial and agricultural enterprises on which she can build up her economic position. At the same time, 30,000 Jews are going into Israel every month and those immigrants have to be clothed and fed and housed. Moreover, I understand that the Israeli Government are planning to contain within their present border within a few years a population of 5,000,000. I think that is an extremely high figure and I doubt whether they will be able to do it. The houses which have long been Arab homes have been taken over by Jewish families and it would be political suicide for any Jewish statesman to suggest that those looted homes ought to be given back to their rightful owners. Just before his death, Count Bernadotte urged the Government of Israel to take back the Arab refugees. The Israeli Government refused on several occasions to discuss this matter with him. I think it is well to remember the advice which Count Bernadotte gave before his death. I quote from his Report:
  "The right of the refugees to return to their homes must be safeguarded."
  Here is a challenge to the United Nations. It is up to them to see something is done about it.
  832
  I submit that there is a threefold responsibility for this tragedy. First there is Israel, who by her own actions has brought misery, starvation and death to nearly two-thirds of the Arab population of Palestine. It is to Israel, the latest member of the United Nations, to whom the whole world looks, and I hope not in vain, to make the largest contribution to the solution of this problem. The world must judge in the future whether the State of Israel has a heart, but let it never be said that the new State was born without a conscience. Secondly, there is Britain, who should never forget her obligations to the Arab countries and her economic interests in the whole of the Arab countries. She should strive to regain their good will, which she has lost in the last few months. Thirdly, there is the United Nations, and in particular the United States, who sponsored the new State of Israel. They should not forget the challenge and appeal of their own representative, Count Bernadotte. The Jewish refugee problem has partly been solved by creating an Arab refugee problem. The duty clearly lies with these three parties to make restitution for the great injustice and misery they have caused.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I venture to intervene for a few moments in this debate because for some two years I had a degree of responsibility for a problem which is something analogous to the Arab refugee problem. I refer, of course, to the problem of the Jewish refugee camps in Cyprus. Before dealing with that, I should like to refer in one sentence to what the right reverend Primate said about the action of Transjordan. I remember discussing the Palestinian problem with King Abdullah some time in 1937 or 1938. I well remember the broad-minded and generous attitude which he took up in that conversation, and naturally I have noticed with the most lively interest how he has fully lived up to everything that he said to me on that occasion. I took the deepest interest in these camps in Cyprus from the time of my arrival in that island. Without going into the rights or wrongs of the matter, or discussing policies in any way, I must say that I felt great sympathy with the Jews interned there. I was well able to understand their sense of frustration, and the many heartburnings which they must have undergone during their period

  833
  of detention. But, so far as I was concerned, I can certainly say that no proposal for the amelioration of the conditions under which they were living was put before me to which I did not gladly assent; and in every representation I made to the Secretary of State concerning the care and administration of those camps I received the most sympathetic help and support from His Majesty's Government. Indeed, this country can feel very proud indeed of the story of those camps.
  The officers of the Cyprus Administration, and in particular the officers of the health services, did everything in their power to see that those camps were well looked after. I remember very well the good humour and good temper of the young inexperienced soldiers who had the difficult and thankless task of guarding those camps. I remember, too, the splendid help given by the American representatives of the A.J.D.C. The people of Cyprus were very good about the whole matter; and I must say that the Jews themselves inside the camps gave little trouble. Those camps were well administered, and what could be done to relieve the natural distress, frustration and heartburning of the occupants of the camps was done. It is on that account that I venture to speak in this debate.
  I have also heard a good deal about the conditions under which these Arab refugees are living. I mention one point only. I hear that women are giving birth to children in those camps under indescribable conditions. During the whole period while the camps in Cyprus lasted, over 1,000 children were born; and all those children were born with every care and sympathy shown, and under conditions which could not have been bettered. Remembering those things, I venture to endorse the plea of the most reverend Primate that the State of Israel will do whatever they can to remedy the state of affairs in these Arab refugee camps. I do not wish in any way to take sides in the matter in what I am saying; it is so easy to exacerbate feelings by saying a wrong word, and perhaps to put obstacles in the way of what one wishes to achieve. The entire responsibility does not rest with the State of Israel. But they have won a great political victory, a victory with a wonder-
  834
  ful historical background which, because of that historical background, stirs the emotions of all. Again, without entering into the rights or wrongs of the matter—and I earnestly wish success to the State of Israel, starting out upon their great adventure—I would, with great respect to all the authorities in Israel, suggest that nothing would give the State of Israel a better send-off, and nothing could ensure for them more sincere good wishes for their future, than that they should do whatever they can in joining hands with those endeavouring to alleviate the sufferings of these unhappy refugees.
  7.15 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, we are all grateful to the most reverend Primate for calling our attention to the sad plight of the Palestinian Arab refugees who have been driven from their homes by recent hostilities. It is the most recent refugee problem which confronts the world and, as has been so eloquently stated, it is pitiable and tragic in the extreme. I am not going to suggest that this new pressing and distressing problem should lead us to forget the refugee problem created in Europe after the last war. Noble Lords will remember that at one stage there were between 10,000,000 and 12,000,000 displaced persons in Europe; and there are still between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 people living within the Western Zone of Germany who were living somewhere else before the war. But this great problem in Europe has had powerful organisations, such as the International Refugee Organisation, devised to tackle it, and the problem in Western Germany has been the responsibility of the three major Powers who occupy the Western Zones.
  It was otherwise in Palestine and the surrounding Arab States, when the Palestinian refugee problem began to be created in the days immediately preceding the relinquishment by Great Britain of her Mandate. It was not possible for any international action to be taken to cope with the problem until six months later, during the General Assembly of the United Nations. In the meanwhile, the refugees had grown from the first small trickle of Arabs leav-

  835
  ing predominantly Jewish areas into great masses of people, comprising almost the whole Arab population of Palestine—as has been said, about 800,000 in all. This mass settled in Arab Palestine and in the neighbouring Arab States, and for six months were succoured almost exclusively by the inhabitants of these countries. I should like to join in the tribute paid to the unselfish way in which these neighbouring Arab States and people took the refugees into their homes, and in many cases shared with them their entire stocks of food.
  As noble Lords have already pointed out, His Majesty's Government took the initiative, both in action by themselves and in pressing for action by others. His Majesty's Government immediately gave £100,000 for relief purposes, and this provided working capital for the first United Nations Relief Organisation under Sir Raphael Cilento. Then, at the General Assembly of the United Nations in September last, the United Kingdom delegation were the first to press for more extensive action to cope with the Arab refugee problem. The House will be aware of the Organisation which emerged from that session of the United Nations—namely, the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees. This Organisation, ably directed by Mr. Griffis, the former American Ambassador in Cairo, has done valuable work in the field. The refugees in the Gaza area are being fed on a scale of about 2,000 calories a day, and they are being sheltered. We have no precise information about the refugees in other parts, but we understand that feeding is at a reasonable level, and that shelter of some sort has now been provided.
  I think we are all proud to know that the British Red Cross and other voluntary British societies were amongst the first in the field, and that the total British contribution of £1,000,000 to the United Nations' scheme was the first substantial sum on which Mr. Griffis was able to draw. The most reverend Primate asked whether it is possible for a contribution to be made from this £1,000,000 to the British Red Cross. I have had the matter checked up, and I find that the British Government's £1,000,000 was a grant to the United Nations Relief for Palestine, and I understand that discussions are now
  836
  going on between the United Nations, the League of Red Cross Societies and the British Red Cross to see how far the funds required by the British Red Cross can be made available to them. It is also good news that the even more important contribution of the United States' Government, that of 16,000,000 dollars, has just been passed by Congress. I understand that the authorising Bill provides that an advance of 8,000,000 dollars—that is, half the amount—may be obtained from the Finance Reconstruction Corporation. The appropriation authorising the whole payment will, I believe, come up for consideration in mid-April.
  As has been said in this debate, all this is only immediate relief. Contributions to the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees have not yet reached the estimated requirement of 32,000,000 dollars, but Mr. Griffis estimates that, on the basis of the advances of 5,000,000 dollars from the United Nations Working Capital Fund and present contributions of about 25,000,000 dollars pledged to the scheme, he should be able to continue feeding the refugees until December.
  The most reverend Primate asked me specifically for information regarding contributions from other countries. I have a long list of fourteen members of the United Nations and three non-members who have made contributions: the Dominions, Western European countries, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, and the Yemen. The three non-members are Bahrein, Indonesia and Switzerland. It would take a good deal of time to give the details, and I thought it would be better if a question were put down and the full details given in answer.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: They have all subscribed?
  LORD HENDERSON: Yes, sums varying from 726,000 dollars from Canada, to a contribution of food from the Yemen which cannot be estimated in dollars. We are urging the Secretary-General of the United Nations not to insist upon immediate repayment of the loan from the Working Capital Fund from the American dollar contribution. Moreover, we were fortunate in persuading the International Children's Emergency Fund last October to allocate 6,000,000 dollars from the residual funds of U.N.R.R.A. for the relief of children and nursing mothers

  837
  among the refugees. We shall continue to take every opportunity to encourage this United Nations work of relief. We consider that this urgent matter should be kept before the Assembly of the United Nations and we have noted with satisfaction that the Secretary-General proposes to convene during the present Assembly in New York the Advisory Committee provided for by the last Assembly's resolution on refugees. This Advisory Committee will be composed of representatives of Australia, Argentine, the United Kingdom, the United States, Egypt, the Lebanon and France.
  But, as I have suggested, measures of immediate relief leave us with the more serious problem of resettlement. I have been glad to see in the British Press recently a number of well informed and moving articles about the plight of the refugees, amongst which I might mention in particular those of Mr. Alexander Clifford in the Daily Mail. There have also been a number of letters from Mr. Victor Gollancz who assures us of the Jewish interest in the plight of the refugees, and I am sure we all trust that the Jewish response will be in proportion to Mr. Gollancz's hopes. The plain fact is that, just because the refugees are being kept alive, there is no reason to think that the problem is even on the way to solution. Our representatives in the Middle East tell us that the saddest and most serious thing about the refugees is the apathy and the hopelessness which are setting in. The relief funds do not stretch to the provision of useful work or even of recreation. That is why I do not wish to suggest that, because His Majesty's Government can claim that they have used every endeavour to alleviate the lot of the refugees, and because the measures taken by the United Nations are now showing results, there is any ground for complacency. On the contrary, we consider it to be vital that during any breathing space which may be provided by international relief, plans should be worked out for the absorption and resettlement of the refugees in case all of them cannot return to their homes.
  Under the terms of the United Nations' Resolution of December 11, 1948, responsibility for arranging repatriation or resettlement and compensation is vested in the United Nations Conciliation Commission. The Conciliation Commission is
  838
  now holding a conference with the Arab Governments at Beirut to discuss this problem. We must, of course, await the results and recommendations of the Beirut Conference. But I wholeheartedly agree with the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords that what is needed is both a short-term policy and a long-term one. Immediate relief measures, such as those to which I have referred, are urgently necessary, but they are not enough. There must be practical repatriation or resettlement plans which will restore this vast mass of refugees to conditions of normal human existence by the provision of homes and work and opportunity. But, as noble Lords will recognise, until there is a peace settlement between the Jews and the Arabs, it will not be known what proportion of the Arab refugees can be repatriated.
  It is undoubtedly true that short-term plans will have only a very limited effect. What can be done in that way should, of course, be undertaken as rapidly as possible. But of greater effect will be a programme of long-term constructive plans by which absorption and resettlement on a large scale can be carried out for those who cannot return to their old homes. There is scope for large-scale works such as irrigation schemes, land reclamation, the building of road and rail communications and other socially and economically necessary developments. The task is essentially one of providing work for the able-bodied, and we understand there are a number of development plans on foot in the Arab States which might be expedited and expanded and so contribute to the absorption of a large number of refugees. The sort of schemes I have in mind are, a project for increased cultivation in the rain fed Jezira area of North Eastern Syria; the irrigation of the Jordan Valley, and the irrigation of about two million acres in the Euphrates Valley in Iraq. Obviously, the undertaking and speeding up of such large-scale creative enterprises would involve financial resources beyond the immediate capacity of the Arab countries concerned, and substantial financial assistance would be needed from outside sources—international or other. It is only by such projects that this urgent problem of the Palestinian refugees can be tackled with prospects of adequate success.
  His Majesty's Government will be very glad to give the Commission and the

  839
  Governments concerned all the encouragement and advice in their power in carrying out resettlement of the refugees, and in particular to provide the expert assistance of the economic advisers attached to the British Middle East Office, who have during the past three years assisted the Arab Governments in the preparation of their development plans. I am sure the House will be gratified that British organisations, both private and official, have taken a leading part in trying to relieve the sufferings of the Arab refugees from Palestine; that the great problem of repatriation or resettlement is one on which we are anxious to see practical plans produced, and that we are ready to co-operate so far as we can in order that these may contribute to an effective solution of this urgent human problem.
  I will add only this. The debate has shown not only the deep sympathy of your Lordships' House but also its deep concern in face of large-scale human misery and suffering. We hope and pray that the cry for help will be heard across the world, and that an increasing and continuing response will be forthcoming which will enable prompt, increasing and effective action to be taken to aid and rehabilitate these distressed people, whose plight is not of their own making.
  7.32 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have not taken part in this debate because I have no special information on the subject which has been under consideration. My noble friend Lord Amulree spoke from these Benches, as he is intimately connected with the British Red Cross and, as his speech showed, is well informed as to the work of relief that is being done for the refugees and as to the desires entertained by the Red Cross organisation. But in a few days from now I shall be going to Israel, and I hope to gather there a good deal of information on the subject which has been under review to-day. I can assure your Lordships that any opportunity which I may have of conferring with the authorities of the State of Israel I will take, in order to convey to them the feeling of deep concern which is prevalent in all quarters of your Lordships' House at the plight of the refugees. I will convey, also, the earnest hope of
  840
  your Lordships that the State of Israel will take any measures within their power of helpful and sympathetic co-operation towards bringing about the resettlement of these refugees in conditions that are just and effective for their redemption from the plight in which they now find themselves.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I rise only to thank very much the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for his sympathetic reply. I am sure this debate has been useful in expressing the deep feeling we all have on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with:
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
  Bill committed.

  TWICKENHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  PASTORAL REORGANISATION MEASURE, 1949
  Text of the Measure, together with a Report from the Ecclesiastical Committee: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  Second Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday next.