Lords Sitting of 31 May 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BOLTON CORPORATION BILL BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a, and committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the letter from Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., announcing his resignation of the office.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the letter be now considered.
  Moved, That the letter be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I am sure it will be the wish of us all that we should take this opportunity of paying our tribute to Sir Henry Badeley, and I beg to move to resolve:
  "That this House have received with sincere concern the news of the retirement of Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, and they think it right to record the just sense which they entertain of the zeal, ability, diligence and integrity with which the said Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., has executed the important duties of his office."
  For fifty-two years Sir Henry has been in the service of this House. I do not know whether that is unprecedented, but
  1250
  I should think it must be so. For nineteen years he has been at the Table of the House, and for fifteen of them as Clerk of the Parliaments, before which for several years he was head of our Legal Division. It is a remarkable record of long and valuable service to this House. Nobody is prouder than Sir Henry of the place that this House occupies in the records of Parliaments and he was a master of its procedure, as many of us know to our advantage. In this long time he must have witnessed many dramatic events. I will recall only one recent service that he rendered to the House—namely, that when during the war we had to move our Sittings to another building he was in charge of the many and complicated arrangements attaching to that alteration. Everyone will agree, I think, that the arrangements were carried through so easily and smoothly that we scarcely noticed there was a difference. I, myself, for the time being having the honour to occupy the place of Leader of the House, am indebted, and have been many times, to Sir Henry Badeley's wise and helpful guidance, and I am sure that the noble Marquess opposite, like every other member who has preceded us in these offices, has had the same experience. Sir Henry was willing, indeed anxious, at all times to give service, advice and help to every member of the House, of all Parties, without regard to anything but his service and his duty.
  My Lords, I hope that during the greater leisure that Sir Henry will now have at his disposal he will perhaps be able to collect some of the records of which he must have a unique collection. I feel that it is a privilege to be able to pay a tribute to the service of so distinguished a servant of the Mother of Parliaments, and I have the honour to move the Resolution.
  Moved to resolve, That this House have received with sincere concern the news of the retirement of Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, and they think it right to record the just sense which they entertain of the zeal, ability, diligence and integrity with which the said Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., has executed the important duties of his office.—(Viscount Addison.)
  2.42 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to add a few words to the notable tribute which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has paid to Sir Henry Badeley. The resignation of a Clerk of Parliaments is always a sad event for the members of this House, which, by nature if not always by politics, is, I think it would be true to say, a conservative body. We do not like change, especially in the management of our own domestic affairs as a House. Moreover, on the present occasion I know that this feeling will be especially strong, because we are losing more than an Officer of the House. We are losing an old and tried friend.
  It is almost impossible for most of us to imagine this Chamber without Sir Henry Badeley. In an age when a great many things have altered, he has appeared to be the one unchanging element, and that shrewd kindly face has seemed as much a part of the House of Lords as the Table at which he sat. But for the fact that he did not technically qualify, I think he might certainly have been described as the Father of the House. To most of us—I think I may say all of us—he has been a guide, philosopher and friend during the whole time we have sat here. We have gone to him with our troubles, and he has given us all—irrespective of Party—the benefit of his wisdom and experience. Whether Sir Henry has any personal political views is, of course a matter wrapped in his own breast; certainly he has never allowed them to emerge or in any way to bias his judgment. No doubt there have been times when we have tried him rather highly, especially when unwittingly, or perhaps impulsively, we have committed some deplorable breach of the rules and customs of the House. On such occasions—I am glad to say fairly rare ones—we have all witnessed a remarkable phenomenon: not a muscle of his face changed, but one knew instinctively, by some extraordinary telepathy, how deeply one had erred; and one made haste, so far as lay in one's power, to repair the error.
  I suppose Sir Henry knows this House as no one else does. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, he has always been a jealous and
  1252
  worthy custodian of its privileges and traditions. He knows the members, too, for he has listened with imperturbable courtesy, for over fifty years to all our speeches, good, bad and indifferent. For that alone we owe him our most sincere thanks. Now, as your Lordships have heard, in the fullness of time he is making way for another. We shall miss his kindness and his courtesy; we shall miss his wise guidance; and, if I may use such a term in this context, we shall miss the tang of his personality. But he will leave to all of us who have had the privilege of knowing him the memory of a great public servant. Wherever his future activities may carry him—for it will, I am sure, be to activity, and not to leisure, that he will look for-ward—we all wish him well.
  2.45 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we on these Benches would wish to join in supporting the Motion proposed on the occasion of the deeply regretted retirement of Sir Henry Badeley from the post which hears the fine old title of Clerk of the Parliaments. For 700 years there have been Principal Clerks of your Lordships' House. In the old prints of the times of the Tudors, and even earlier, one may see the clerks kneeling on the floor, supporting the papers on which they wrote on divans, exactly like the one we have here, evidently regarded as being unworthy to be allowed to sit at a Table in the presence of their illustrious Lordships. Afterwards, from that uncomfortable and undignified position, they were promoted to the comparative ease which we now observe. I cannot imagine that during all those centuries there has ever been an Officer of the House more popular with the members than Sir Henry Badeley. He has always been helpful and friendly; he has been a guide to the junior members—and, indeed, to the senior members also—through the intricate corridors of our ancient procedure. When some fresh question has arisen for decision he has always been ready with some gentle indication of what might possibly be the right course to pursue; and by an odd coincidence that has almost always been the course that has ultimately been followed.
  The Clerk of the Parliaments is ex officio the guardian of the accumulated traditions of all those centuries, and it

  1253
  is right that in a place of authority there should be a faithful trustee and a staunch defender of those traditions. If ever some revolutionary innovator were to be found in that chair, the British Constitution would be rocked to its foundations. But with him, shining through the mists of the ancient there were occasional and perhaps frequent glimpses of the rays of the modern. It is in friendship and in gratitude that we now say farewell—not altogether, we may hope, but in our official relations—to a highly esteemed and very greatly valued servant of your Lordships' House.
  2.49 p.m.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, it would be wholly wrong if this occasion were allowed to pass without a word being said on behalf of Sir Henry's colleagues. In the work of this House many of the duties of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and certainly not the least important duties, are necessarily performed, as it were, behind the scenes, as he is the official responsible for the administration and the welfare of practically the entire staff. I must confess that until I became intimately concerned with the work of the House I did not realise what an extraordinary happy relationship exists among all the members of the staff of this House, of whatever grade. I am quite certain that all Sir Henry's colleagues—and in that word I include all the officials of the House, in whatever capacity they serve—would agree that this very happy state of affairs has been largely due to the personality of the Clerk of the Parliaments to whom we are saying good-bye to-day.
  We are all indebted to him for countless acts of friendship and consideration. We have all drawn very often on his unique fund of wisdom and experience, and we all have for him the warmest feelings of friendship. If I may borrow from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, one of his cricketing metaphors, I would say to Jack Badeley: "When you have to your credit a score of seventy-five, very much not out, and when you retire still full of runs, having earned the admiration and affection of everyone who has taken part in the match, then, indeed, you have played an innings of which you have every right to be very, very proud."
  2.50 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, as the only representative of the Peers Spiritual present to-day, may I be allowed to add one word to the tributes which have been paid? I am sure that the Archbishops and Bishops who are members of this House would not like such an opportunity to pass without expressing their deep appreciation and gratitude, mingled with regrets, on this occasion. As members of this House, Bishops come and go, but as I look back on the day when I first entered it, now some fifteen years ago, and remember how kind Sir Henry Badeley was in explaining the ways of this strange land, I recall now, as I realised then, that "even a fool shall not err therein." It is perhaps not often that a man of such great ability, such amazing devotion and such knowledge gained from experience, has also an outstanding gift for personal friendship; and it is for that quality, as much as for his services to this House, that to-day we should like to thank one of whom so many of us dare to speak as "Jack Badeley."
  2.52 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I wish on behalf of the National Liberal Peers to say how entirely I agree with everything which has been said about our dear old friend with whom we are parting. There is just one thought I would like to leave in your Lordships' minds—for I am sure that we all part with him with regret—to show how much he is in our hearts, and that is that we will always remember him as "Jack." Very soon after I became a member of your Lordships' House, it was not "Sir Henry," but always "Jack." That demonstrates our great affection for him and also for his kindness in allowing us to call him by that very intimate name.
  2.53 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not think it would be right to allow this occasion to pass without a few words from these humble Benches. It is on these Benches that the bad boys sit, and it is to these Benches that the Riot Act would have had to be read if Sir Henry had not been able to use his eye. He has always been most accessible to all of us who have sought his guidance at any time. The awesome ceremony of taking our seats has been rendered less awesome

  1255
  by the matter-of-fact way in which he approached it on our behalf. I think I can let you into the secret of his influence over this House: it is that he not a large man. He exercised the historic power of the small man over the large—David over Goliath. He had the magnetic eye of the lion-tamer. The attribute of men of such stature is very long life, and I believe that we shall from time to time see him with us for many, many more years.
  2.55 p.m.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words supporting this Resolution in appreciation of our good friend, Sir Henry Badeley. I am one of the few people in this House who sat under the three previous Clerks of the Parliaments, Sir Henry Graham, Sir Arthur Thring and Sir Edward Alderson, and I can say with simple assurance and truth that our good friend Sir Henry Badeley more than filled the position, maintaining the fine traditions that were established by these earlier occupants of the office. As a Back-Bencher also, I should like to say that when we find those on the Front Bench looking, upon Sir Henry Badeley as a guide, philosopher and friend, it will readily be appreciated how much greater help he has been to those who do not sit on those exalted Benches. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, we feel very strongly our appreciation of the great help and encouragement that Sir Henry Badeley has always been to those who sit on the Back Benches. Not merely for his ability, for his capacity and for his deep knowledge of the traditions of the House, but also on account of his friendliness, his courtesy and his constant readiness to help all members in the Parliamentary work which lies before them, I am glad to have this brief opportunity of saying something to one whom I have learnt to appreciate as a friend, not only in this House but outside it as well.
  2.57 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, there is another aspect of Sir Henry Badeley's service to the House of Lords which ought to be mentioned, and my excuse for mentioning it is that none of the Law Lords is able to be present to-day. They are all engaged on their special duties,
  1256
  either hearing an appeal in another room or sitting in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Several of the Law Lords who were here just before we sat pressed me to mention to the House the very great respect and gratitude which they have, one and all, for Sir Henry Badeley's service in yet another capacity.
  Your Lordships must not allow the exceptional arrangements of the last year or two to cause you to forget that the House of Lords has two functions: it has a judicial function and it has also a function as a place of legislation and debate. By custom none of your Lordships, except the Law Lords, the Lord Chancellor or the ex-Lord Chancellors attends when the House of Lords is acting in a judicial capacity, but, both as Lord Chancellor and, at the request of my noble and learned friend, as an ex-Lord Chancellor, I have constantly had to preside in appeals to this House from the courts in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. I am saying no more than the bare truth when I state that the services which Sir Henry Badeley has rendered in the conduct of the judicial proceedings—because he always sat here when we were discharging that duty, as well as during our debates—cannot be over-estimated.
  He has been complete master of the rules which have to be applied—perhaps rather more strictly than in our debates—when these appeals are heard. Difficulties of a very technical kind have sometimes presented themselves, but Sir Henry was always well informed and ready to suggest the best way of handling them. He was always available to everybody; and there is not a single man who has had to take part in that judicial work in my time who does not feel just as much indebted to Sir Henry Badeley for what he did and knew in that capacity in the Supreme Court of Appeal as for his services to us in connection with our debates.
  I do not seek to add a single word to what has been said on the other and better-known aspect of Sir Henry's work. But if we are trying to add together the sum of gratitude which we feel we owe, we should remember that for many years hitherto, until the last few years, Sir Henry Badeley has rendered this service with the greatest possible skill and judgment. For that aspect of his work, we all owe to him a debt of gratitude which we shall not forget.
  3.1 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the task falls to me to sum up. All these things which have been said are true. I feel that I have lost from that chair a very dear friend; and that. I believe, is what all your Lordships feel. I suppose it is true that no man is a hero to his own valet, but, if your Lordships took the opinion of the humblest servants we have in this House, the doorkeepers, those who sweep up the crumbs, or whoever it may be, you would find that their opinion of Sir Henry Badeley would be exactly the same as ours. I venture to suggest that that is not a bad test.
  Sir Henry Badeley has had the task of breaking in" a series of Lord Chancellors. Any man who has had that task and can still smile is a very remarkable man. Sir Henry Badeley has always faced life—and does always face life, for after all, thank God! this is not an obituary notice—with a smile. He never gets rattled or angry; he is always cheery. And that is the secret of his charm.
  When I came to your Lordships' House, b knowing nothing about the Rules of Order, not knowing how to put the Question, or anything of that sort, I soon discovered that he was the man on whom I must rely. He is separated from the Lord Chancellor by a great distance; and between the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Lord Chancellor are the amply-proportioned feet of my noble friends. Sir Henry was an athlete in his early days, and he used sometimes to do a sort of hurdle race to reach the Woolsack. Then he and I discovered that that was not quick enough, so we developed a system of signalling. What the future has in store, heaven only knows—if I could tell what the future had in store, even next Saturday, I should be relieved of a great many embarrassments! But if misfortunes should descend upon Sir Henry Badeley and myself, I understand that there might be an opening for us as a couple of tic-tac men, because he had contrived a perfect system of signalling.
  My Lords, I agree with what has been said this afternoon. No one can imagine that Sir Henry Badeley would want to be idle; and I am perfectly certain that, whatever the future has in store for him, it will certainly be a pretty busy future.
  1258
  It has been really touching, I think, to realise that all sections of the House are united in love and regard for a very great public servant.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolution to Sir Henry Badeley.
  Moved, That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said Resolution to Sir Henry Badeley.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  3.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty laying before His Majesty a copy of the letter of the said Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., and likewise of the Resolution of this House, and recommending the said Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., to His Majesty's Royal Grace and Bounty.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty has been pleased to appoint, by His Letters Patent dated the thirty-first day of this instant May, Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, C.B., to the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, vacant by the retirement of Sir Henry John Fanshawe Badeley, K.C.B., C.B.E., the late Clerk of the Parliaments.
  Patent read; and the said Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, C.B., then made the necessary declaration (which declaration is set down in the Roll amongst the oaths of the great officers), and took his seat at the Table.
  THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, may I, on behalf of the staff of the House of Lords, say that they are delighted at the appointment which has just been announced by the Lord Chancellor, and at those which he is about to announce. And may I say to Robert Overbury that his promotion gives us the greatest pleasure; that he can count on our loyal support to the fullest extent; and that we wish him a very happy and successful term of office.

  CLERK ASSISTANT OF THE PARLIAMENTS
  3.12 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that by virtue of the power granted to me as Lord Chancellor by the Statute 5 George IV, chapter 82, Section 3, I have appointed Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, C.B., M.C., to be your Lordships' Clerk Assistant in the place of Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, C.B., who has been appointed Clerk of the Parliaments. I beg to move to resolve: That this House do approve the appointment of Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, C.B., M.C., to be their Lordships' Clerk Assistant in the room of Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, C.B., who has been appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

  READING CLERK AND CLERK OF OUTDOOR COMMITTEES
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships' House that by virtue of the power granted to me as Lord Chancellor by the Statute 5, George IV, chapter 82, Section 3, I have appointed Victor Martin Reeves Goodman, Esquire, O.B.E., M.C., to be your Lordships' Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in the place of Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, C.B., M.C., who has been appointed Clerk Assistant. I beg to move to resolve: That this House do approve the appointment of Victor Martin Reeves Goodman, Esquire, O.B.E., M.C., to be their Lordships' Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in the place of Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, C.B., M.C., who has been appointed Clerk Assistant.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

  HOUSING BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  CIVIL SERVICE LEGAL DEPARTMENTS
  3.13 p.m.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will make available to members of this House copies of the Report of the Committee on Legal Departments of the Civil Service referred to in paragraphs 31 to 33 of the Report of the Committee on Higher Civil Service Remuneration (Cmd. 7635) as the Barlow Committee.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, copies of the Report have now been placed in the Printed Paper Office.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having secured the removal of the Treasury ban imposed for security reasons in 1944.

  ELECTION SLOGANS FROM AIRCRAFT
  3.14 p.m.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether attention has been called to the use, in Bishop Auckland, County Durham, of an aircraft for the purpose of declaiming election slogans by means of amplifier and loudspeaker; and whether the Minister of Civil Aviation has any powers to restrict the use of aircraft in this way, and if not whether he will take such powers.]
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention to the incident. Provided that the aircraft is operated in accordance with the provisions of the air navigation regulations, I have no power as Minister of Civil Aviation to restrict the use of aircraft for the purposes mentioned in the Question. Inquiries in this case have shown that the pilot was not guilty of any breach of those regulations. However, at the request of my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, in the exercise of his powers under Defence Regulations 55 and 55AA as applied by the Motor Fuel (Control) Order, 1948, I recently informed all air charter companies that during the present period of petrol shortage no owner of a charter aircraft may use his fuel allowance for any form of sky advertising.

  1261
  The owner of the aircraft in question has now been warned that the restriction applies to sky-shouting, as well as to other forms of sky-advertising.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend, and ask whether similar warnings will be given to the owners of two or three other aircraft similarly offending?
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will bring such cases to my notice, I will take appropriate steps.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether this prohibition will extend to land-shouting by Ministers from official motorcars?
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, that is outside my Department, but I feel sure that the noble Viscount will agree that land-shouting by members of all Parties should be watched with the greatest care.

  LEICESTER SQUARE POST OFFICE COLLECTIONS
  3.17 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will arrange for a later collection from the all-night post office at Leicester Square than 6.30 p.m., so as to improve the postal facilities for the public in the West End of London.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the question of a later collection from the Leicester Square post office is being considered by my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General, who will inform the noble Lord in the near future of his decision.
  LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I feel sure that, if he will consider this question favourably, it will be a great boon to the business public in the West End of London.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, arising out of that, will His Majesty's Government guarantee to pay as much attention to the needs of the consumers in this matter as they do to those of the Post Office employees?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that the needs of the consumers in London will be considered by my right honourable friend in making up his mind on the question that was asked by the noble Lord opposite.

  IRELAND BILL
  3.19 p.m.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 3 [Other provisions as to operation of United Kingdom and colonial laws in relation to Republic of Ireland]:
  Consideration resumed of the Amendment moved yesterday by Viscount Simon.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Your Lordships will have realised that advantage was taken of the suggestion that there should be some consultation after the House rose yesterday. We shall all be glad if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor can tell us in a few moments that a conclusion has been reached which I am hopeful will be agreed. I had the honour of attending discussions between, on the one side, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Lord, Lord MacDermott, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others, and, on the other side, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the Lord Chancellor and their advisers. I am glad to say that the result of that discussion is that an Amendment now appears in the name of the Lord Chancellor which, as it seems to me, deals in an entirely satisfactory manner with the point I raised in my Amendment. There is no substantial difference between the first of the two subsections in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment and what I was proposing, although have no doubt that the new Amendment covers the ground more accurately and completely. At any rate, it satisfies what, to my mind, is the one essential condition—that is, that the language should be plain and simple, so that those who are anxious to ensure that they are not losing their British nationality by anything in the present legislation should not have to consult Acts of Parliament or specialists, but should be able to answer the questions which are

  1263
  there raised from their own knowledge, to their own satisfaction and, as a result, find their position perfectly secure.
  I do not think I can say the same about the second subsection in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, with which I had nothing to do. However, it deals with a most complex question and I daresay this is the best way in which it can be stated. If anybody wants to see what is sometimes involved in doubtless most accurate drafting, he had better ask himself whether he really understands the second subsection without the assistance of some special guidance. I had nothing to do with that subsection and I have no doubt at all that it is quite correctly framed, though I think to most of us it has rather the appearance of a particularly difficult crossword puzzle. The main thing is that the point for which we were respectively contending and which the Lord Chancellor conceded in principle yesterday is now being met; and I have no doubt at all that it has been most admirably met by the clause which the Lord Chancellor is about to move and to explain. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.22 p.m.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, in subsection (2) (a) to omit "Republic of Ireland" and to insert "Irish Republic." The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List, I have been influenced by what Lord Simon said yesterday—namely, that in the state of the law as between the Republic of Ireland and the British Commonwealth it should be plain that all who run may read. I consider it inadvisable that what I submit is an untrue statement should appear in clause after clause of the Bill, wherein the Southern Irish Republic is described as the "Republic of Ireland." That, I submit to the Committee, is not a fact, and therefore I am moving that for the words "Republic of Ireland" there should be substituted the words "Irish Republic." It is clear to everyone to whom I have put the matter that there is a vast difference between these two phrases, for the words "Republic of Ireland" would take in the whole of Ireland.
  I remember the statement made by the Lord Chancellor on Thursday last as to the opinion of Mr. Ellison, who was representing Mr. Dulanty, the representative in this country of the Republic of Ireland, that in their view "Ireland" meant the whole of Ireland. Since then the Lord Chancellor has said that he has been in communication with the Government of Ireland and they have associated themselves with the opinion expressed by Mr. Ellison on behalf of Mr. Dulanty, that "Ireland" meant the whole of Ireland. As I said before, in a Bill such as this, a British Bill, introduced to make clear on the face of it what is the position, it is very undesirable that in clause after clause an untrue statement should be made. I submit that it is an untrue and incorrect statement to refer to the "Republic of Ireland"—"Irish Republic" is another thing. You can have several Irish Republics, if you so desire, within the area of Ireland; but to suggest that here there is an Irish Republic consisting of the whole of Ireland, as is now the claim of the Irish Government, is likely to mislead many people, especially foreigners. I submit that it is very desirable that these Amendments should be carried so as to make this British Statute—after all, it is a British Statute and not an Irish Republican Statute—plain to all.
  It is rather remarkable that in another place a Member who referred to the "Irish Republic" was interrupted by several honourable Members who said "Not 'Irish Republic,' 'Republic of Ireland,' which is a different thing." That point has been urged again and again on behalf of the new Irish Republic—that they are the Republic of the whole of Ireland; that Ireland is an island, and that they are the Republic of that island. I know that the Lord Chancellor has contended that in the Bill the difference between the twenty-six counties and the six counties is definitely set out, but I submit that in a Bill having the authority of the British Houses of Parliament we should not have phrases admitting verbally that there is such a thing as the Republic of Ireland. That is an untrue statement which, in my submission, Should not appear in a British Statute. I hope very much that the Committee will say that that is so.
  I think the Lord Chancellor said that he was rather surprised when he heard this statement by Mr. Ellison, but that we must not take it as gospel. I understand that the point has now been definitely put before the Irish Government, and they say that Mr. Ellison was correct in saying Ireland was an island and that the Republic of Ireland represented the whole of that island. If we had "Republic of Eire" I should not so much mind; we know what "Eire" is. But it seemed to me a simpler and less objectionable way of dealing with this matter simply to substitute for the words "Republic of Ireland," the words "Irish Republic." I therefore beg to move the first Amendment set out on the Paper in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 23, leave out ("Republic of Ireland") and insert ("Irish Republic").— (Lord Broughshane.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I very much hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I do not think he has got the Irish conception quite right. It was that on December 6, 1922, which is a long time ago, the area of jurisdiction of the Irish Free State was the whole of Ireland. That was the proposition. It is not the proposition that the whole of Ireland to-day is embraced in the Irish Republic. The difficulty is that if we had only ourselves to consider there might be something to be said for these Amendments. But we have not only ourselves to consider. Our strength is that we are a member of a great group of nations called the British Commonwealth, or the British Empire., or what you will. This matter has been discussed and negotiated between all of us, and the opinion of every constituent member of the British Commonwealth is that we should accept this title of "Republic of Ireland." It is the title that the Irish people themselves want to adopt and, although I do not say it is conclusive, yet when you come to nomenclature I think the fact that a man desires to call himself by a particular name is at any rate some reason why you should accept that name. It may to doubt be true that it would be better to talk about the "Republic in Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland." But that is the title which they have adopted; that is the title which every single member-State of the British Commonwealth has accepted; that is the title by which they will be known in all
  1266
  negotiations with foreign countries; in treaties and documents which they sign that is how they will be called. We should be putting ourselves completely out of step with the rest of the nations of the world if we adopted the noble Lord's suggestion.
  I could understand any apprehension which the noble Lord might have, had this not been a Bill which had, on the face of it, a clear affirmation of the position of Northern Ireland. But having regard to the fact that there is, in full measure—as some people think overflowing; but at any rate in full measure—a declaration of the status and position of Northern Ireland, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. I am sure it would be wise to accept the name which Southern Ireland have selected as the name by which they want to be known. We wish them good fortune in the future, and it would be a great pity if, at this moment of parting, we were to do anything which might be construed as showing any petty feeling or I sympathise with the noble Lord but I would point out that there are all sorts of illogical names. I am not sure that the "United States of America" is not, in itself, a rather illogical name. Possibly the early framers of the Constitution thought that Mexico in the south and Canada in the north would come in. I am not sure that "Northern Ireland" itself is not illogical for, after all, the most northerly part of Ireland is in the area of—what shall I call it?—the "Republic of Ireland," the "Irish Free State," "Eire" or what you will. So I do not think that in Irish affairs we can appeal too strongly to logic. Having said that, I would add that I very much hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, for the reasons which I have given.
  LORD BARNBY: No one would wish to introduce any contentious subject, and it is certainly not my intention to do so, but I took particular note of the remarks made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and, remembering that there is a good deal of contention between the people in Northern Ireland and those in Southern Ireland on certain matters, I would be glad to have this point made clear. The Lord Chancellor's statement was that this was the name which the Irish people wished to adopt. I rise merely to suggest that it is not to

  1267
  be inferred from that that the people in Northern Ireland would not be Irish and it is also not to be assumed, ipso facto, that everyone in Northern Ireland agrees with the term being "The Republic of Ireland," and not the "Irish Republic." There seems to be some conflict on this subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I might say one word about this Amendment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, will realise that what I am going to say does not arise from any desire on my part to leave the situation unclear. I think I have made it evident in speeches which I have delivered in the course of our discussions on this Bill how strongly I feel on this question of Northern Ireland. Nor, if I may say so, with all deference, was I entirely convinced by the arguments used by the Lord Chancellor about the British Commonwealth. I may be misinterpreting him—I sincerely hope that I am not—but I had the impression that he said that here we had a matter on which there was a united view in the British Commonwealth, and that it would be very unwise to break the common front. My Lords, the essence of the British Commonwealth is that it is a free Commonwealth of free nations. We all have a perfect right to take our own line on any question. Other Commonwealth nations would claim the right to do exactly the same thing.
  If I am a little doubtful about the Amendment which is now before the House it is because I do not really believe it is necessary, as the point is already covered. If the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, will look at the title of the Bill, he will see that it is described as:
  "An Act to recognise and declare the constitutional position as to the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire. …"
  That is the very title of the Bill. Then, if the noble Lord turns to Clause 1 (1), he will see that it specifically refers to "the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire," and if he turns to subsection (3) he will see that it says that it is the part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) that is to be referred to throughout the Bill as "the Republic of Ireland." Finally, if he looks at subsection (2), he will see that it is there made clear that Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's dominions. Therefore, I think
  1268
  that the point which the noble Lord is quite rightly anxious to assure is already made in the Bill. For that reason I would advise him on the whole not to press his Amendment, though I can assure him that I have great sympathy with the object which it seeks to achieve.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: Of course I will respond to the appeal which has been made by the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. But I would like to know from the Lord Chancellor whether this point was actually before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—that the title used in this Bill should be "Republic of Ireland" and not "Irish Republic." As I said a few minutes ago, there was a great feeling that the words "Republic of Ireland" which apparently were deemed in some quarters as covering the Island of Ireland from sea to sea, should be maintained. The other day in another place there was an interruption when an honourable Member referred to the "Irish Republic." He was pulled up and objectors said: "Not 'Irish Republic'—'Republic of Ireland'."
  When during the Second Reading debate the Lord Chancellor stated that it was customary for one of the parties to a treaty to accept the terminology suggested by the other party, I then said: provided it is in accordance with the fact." I added, if your Lordships remember, that, if the Irish Republic wished to put in "all the seas surrounding Ireland," we would not dream of putting in such words. If they desired to use some such words as that, then I venture to say we would not adopt them in an English Statute. If the Lord Chancellor can tell me that the matter I have just mentioned was before the representatives at the recent Conference, and in view of the appeal made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury and by the Lord Chancellor himself, I will, of course, withdraw my Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did myself discuss this matter with the representatives of the Commonwealth at the recent Conference.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  3.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
  Amendment of s. 2 of British Nationality Act, 1948
  (". Section two of the British Nationality Act, 1948 shall have effect as if the following subsections were added at the end thereof—
  "(4) The Secretary of State, on receiving a claim by a citizen of Eire under subsection (1) shall issue to the claimant a certificate that he has made such a claim and that he or the person on behalf of whom the claim is made is accordingly a person who under the provisions of this section remains a British subject. Any person who has already made such a claim shall be entitled to request the issue to him of such a certificate and the Secretary of State upon receiving such a request shall issue to him a certificate accordingly.
  (5) Such a certificate shall be received in evidence in any court of law that the person to whom it refers was at the date when the certificate was given a British subject".")
  The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the other matter which I sought to raise in Committee on this Bill. I am glad to say it can now be disposed of very briefly. There is other business to be dealt with and I am sure everyone would like to get on with it. We have had on several occasions to refer to what I have ventured to call the "mysterious section," Section 2 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. It is enough to say that, according to the language of that section, a person who is a citizen of Eire and who loses British nationality under the operation of Section 1, may, none the less, regain it if he takes the steps prescribed in Section (2). The reason I have always thought Section 2 a remarkable section, is that the steps required are nothing more than writing a letter to the Home Secretary. There is in the section no provision whatever that the communication should be acknowledged. There is nothing in the section to say that a man who falls within its scope will get anything from the Home Secretary which will show for the future that he is a British subject, as he claims to be.
  It seems to me that that was rather unfortunate, because there are many purposes for which a man who claims to be a British subject but gets that status only as the result of an application to the Home Office might be glad to have from the Home Office some document which really showed that he obtained what he asked for. This is purely a
  1270
  practical matter. The Lord Chancellor has pointed out that there is a certain difficulty about this matter because, of course, the man gets the restoration of his status of British subject only if it is the fact that he was a citizen of Eire and was losing British nationality under the previous section. It may be that my noble and learned friend, who I know has looked into this closely, has something to suggest which will be better than the present Amendment. If it is the case that he is to make a proposal that would reasonably meet this real difficulty which afflicts a number of people, I should not wish to press my Amendment in the form in which I have moved it. I shall be well satisfied if, when we hear his statement, I find that it reasonably meets the difficulty. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)
  3.41 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The great difficulty about the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, as I have pointed out to him and now point out to your Lordships, is this. If you are a naturalised person, then a certificate of naturalisation is, as it were, your whole title. If one of us wants to obtain a British passport, it is enough for him to assert that he is a British subject. If there were any argument he would show that he or his father was born here. The trouble is that if the Home Secretary were to give a certificate to everyone who sent in an application it would cover a man who had wrongly claimed to be an Eire citizen. For instance, a German might come over here and put in a claim under this section. Obviously, by making a claim, he proves only one thing: that he has made a claim. He has still to prove that he is an Eire citizen, and that he has been a British subject up to the end of 1948 and has lost that status by reason of the passing of the Act. I am anxious that in this matter the Home Secretary should not have to investigate the facts at all. I think that would be a mistake. Under Section 6 of the British Nationality Act, he must make an investigation; but I want it to be purely automatic. A man sends in a claim, and if in fact he shows that up to the end of 1948 he was a British subject and an Eire citizen then the fact that he sends in

  1271
  a claim secures that he remains what he was—namely, a British subject.
  I make the suggestion that the letter which the Home Secretary should send to him—because the Home Secretary is going to acknowledge his claim, while the claim, of course, will be kept—should be in these terms—and, incidentally, I may add that if the letter from the Home Secretary is lost, it will be possible to secure another copy of it by application. I will read the draft of the Home Secretary's letter prepared for me.
  "I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge receipt of your letter of such-and-such a date notifying him of your claim to remain a British subject under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act, 1948. Section 2 provides that any person who is a British subject and a citizen of Eire on December 31, 1948, remains a British subject if he gives notice to the Secretary of State of his claim to remain so on any of the following grounds—"
  Then the letter sets out the three qualifications given in the section.
  "The effect of the step which you have taken is therefore that you remain a British subject, provided you were a British subject and citizen of Eire on December 31, 1948.
  This acknowledgment should be kept carefully, since you may need to show at some future date that you have given notice to the Secretary of State under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act."
  I think that letter will meet the difficulty which the noble and learned Viscount has in mind. I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that so long as the conditions of procedure are satisfied, such a letter will achieve what is wanted, that such a person remains what he was before—namely, a British subject.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I think this is a great improvement and it may be that this is the right way to do it. There are two questions which I should like the noble and learned Viscount to consider, assuming we accept, as I think we should accept, the general plan which he proposes. His plan is that there should not be a change in Statute Law, but that there should be a public undertaking, that an application will be acknowledged in terms such as are contained in the rough draft. I think that is good. The first of the two points that occur to me is a minor one. I. suggest that the letter might include a statement that, if the Home Secretary's communication is accidentally
  1272
  lost, the applicant, by referring to his previous application, may get another copy. Otherwise, people who do not know much about these things might think that because they have lost the letter, there is nothing much they can do about it. I remember Jerome K. Jerome, in an amusing article on stage law, said that on the stage it was possible for the accidental loss of a marriage certificate to annul the most canonical of marriages. That is transpontine melodrama! But we do not want even the most ignorant person to suppose that if he has lost the document, there is no means of getting another copy.
  My second point is this. Let us assume that we take this step. What will happen to a person if, having done all he can to recapture his British nationality, he goes to the Passport Office and asks for a British passport? Up to now, there has been followed a system which, I am glad to know, has been completely abandoned. No one suggests now that anyone has to apply to the High Commissioner of the Republic of Ireland to tell him whether he is or is not a citizen of Eire. That is all finished. But what is to be done?—because I suppose the Passport Office will take the view that they are willing to give a passport provided the two conditions to which the noble and learned Viscount refers are fulfilled. I think it would be very hard to say to an applicant, "You have to prove these two things to us at the Passport Office, or else we will not give you a passport." That imposes on an individual a task which he could not be expected to perform. How is he to prove whether or not he was a citizen of Eire under Eire law?
  On the other hand, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that we do not want this to be a field for fraud, or even something more dangerous than fraud. I do not know whether he has considered this point, but I would suggest that if a man has taken steps under Section 2, amplified as the noble and learned Viscount now suggests, the Passport Office should not automatically say, "You have to prove these two things or we will not give you a passport." I suggest that, like a reasonable office, they should ascertain what are the circumstances by getting the information from the applicants or

  1273
  in any way readily ascertainable. Normally a passport should be granted, without insisting that the applicant makes out his case.
  The noble and learned Viscount pointed out, no doubt correctly, that it was possible to grant a passport to a man who was not a British subject. We do not want to do that except in an occasional case of necessity or accident. I suggest that if we adopt the noble and learned Viscount's plan, which I know is put forward with every desire to meet our difficulty, the two points I mention ought to be considered. If, as I hope, the noble and learned Viscount will agree that my first point should go into the letter, and that the Passport Office should be instructed to grant passports where it is plain to them that there is a reasonable case, then I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thank the noble and learned Viscount. I can give him the assurances which he is asking for on both points. It can easily be put in the letter that when the document is lost, it can be replaced. With regard to passports, if any ordinary man in the street applies for a passport, he is (in my recollection) vouched for by two responsible citizens, and that will be done here. The Passport Office will not ask the man anything about how he became a British subject. He will assert that he is a British subject, and unless there is reason to doubt his statement it will be accepted, and a passport will be issued to him just as it would be to any ordinary person. He will not have to show the root of his title to be a British subject. None of us has to do that. We do not have to say, "because we were born here," or "because our father was born here." We merely assert that we are a British subject, and get two people to vouch for it. The same thing will apply here.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is one other question I would like to ask, although it is a more limited one. I take it that there are some very loyal people who, under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, have since the beginning of this year already written to the Home Secretary and already received the unamended letter which is now to be altered. I hope it may be possible if any record is kept in the Home Office, for an amended version of the letter to be sent
  1274
  to those people, who will otherwise not have the same assurance as people who apply later.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I suppose the noble Marquess means if they ask for it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand it, under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, from January 1 it was proper for them to write and make a claim; and on doing so they received a letter which is now to be replaced by a better version.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If they write and ask for a better letter, they will certainly have it. Whether we can send the letter without their troubling to write, I do not know.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If it is possible, will that be done too?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will ask my right honourable friend to look into that. I do not know how many people have applied.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: A few thousand.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I should think it will be possible. However, I will ask my right honourable friend about it.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  3.54 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
  Provisions as to operation of British Nationality Act, 1948
  ".—(1) A person who—

  (a) was born before the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland; and

  (b) was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of the British Nationality Act, 1948,

  shall not be deemed to halve ceased to be a British subject on the coming into force of that Act unless either—

  (i) he was, on the said sixth day of December domiciled in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland; or

  (ii) he was, on or after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and before the date of the commencement of

  1275
  that Act, permanently resident in that part of Ireland; or

  (iii) he had, before the date of the commencement of that Act, been registered as a citizen of Eire under the laws of that part of Ireland relating to citizenship.

  (2) In relation to persons born before the said sixth day of December in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland, being persons who do not satisfy any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1) of this Section, Sections twelve and thirteen of the said Act (which relate to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and to British subjects without citizenship) shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the said Section twelve, the words or a citizen of Eire' and in subsection (1) of the said Section thirteen, the words 'or of Eire' were omitted.
  (3) So much of the said Act as has the effect of providing that a person is, in specified circumstances, to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having been a British subject immediately before the commencement thereof shall apply also for the purposes of this Section.
  (4) Nothing in this Section affects the position of any person who, on the coming into force of the British Nationality Act, 1948, became a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject without citizenship apart from the provisions of this Section."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: We now come to this new Amendment of mine, although I must not take credit for it. The credit of the scheme is as much due to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as to anybody, but we asked our draftsman to do the technical work. The idea of this clause is to try to set out in subsection (1) a simple statement, which the ordinary man in the street can read and understand, showing the effect of the Bill. Then in the latter part of the clause we get to the technical part of it. That is very difficult, and the man in the street cannot read that—at least, he may read it but he will not understand it. I think we have carried out the conception which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, pressed upon us, and I feel that it has been well worth doing. I had originally drafted a clause which, though just as good as this, involved a great deal of research into law books, and that sort of thing. What I have tried to do now is to set out in the first part of the clause a simple statement as to what the result is and, in the second part, all the technical and somewhat dreary detail which is necessary.
  I may add that I have asked the draftsman to consider carefully whether any amendment of the Title of this Bill is necessary. He tells me that he is satisfied that the new clause is sufficiently covered by the words in the Title:
  "… to make provision as to … the manner in which the law is to apply in relation to it."
  The scheme of the new clause is this:
  "A person who—
  (a) was born before the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred anad twenty-two,"—
  that is to say, the date of the Irish Constitution—
  "in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland"—
  there is no doubt about what that part is, anyhow—
  "and
  (b) was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of the British Nationality Act, 1948, shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject on the coming into force of that Act unless either "—
  here we copy out three things from the Irish Act—
  "(i) he was, on the said sixth day of December, domiciled in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland"—
  that is their phrase, borrowed from their Article 3 of the Constitution of 1922, although the word "domiciled" is to our way of thinking a clumsy word to introduce into this sort of legislation; there have been elaborate judgments, and indeed books, written on what "domicile" means, and it is not at all an easy point, yet we thought it better to follow the words of the Irish Act—
  "or
  (ii) he was, on or after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and before the date of the commencement of that Act, permanently resident in that part of Ireland "—
  this is borrowed from Section 2 of the Irish Nationality Act, 1935—
  "or
  (iii) he had, before the date of the commencement of that Act, been registered as a citizen of Eire under the laws of that part of Ireland relating to citizenship."
  The last part, again, is borrowed from Section 2 of the Irish Nationality Act, 1935. So we have taken the Irish Act, and what we have done is to make it quite clear that that Act, and the Article

  1277
  in the Constitution, refers to that part of Ireland which is now the Republic of Ireland—call it the twenty-six counties, Eire, the Free State, or whatever you will. We have got away from the metaphysical concept that Ireland is all one, when obviously it is not. If it were all one, as the Irishmen sometimes think in the metaphysical celebrations which they go through, how happy we all should be! But unfortunately, when they come down to reality, they realise it is two. That is the broad statement of the fact, and I hope it is satisfactory to all your Lordships. Then there follows the detailed part of the clause which deals with the technical law. We have gone through this very carefully, and I am prepared to expound it to the best of my ability if any noble Lord asks me to do so.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Do the words "that Act" in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) refer to the British Nationality Act, 1948?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, they refer to the British Nationality Act, 1948. I think we were all satisfied, after going into this matter with great care with our draftsmen and technical experts, that this clause does achieve what we want, and I commend it to your Lordships. I think it necessary that we should amend the British Nationality Act in this respect. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise only to say that if the latter part of subsection (1)—namely, the three conditions as to domicile or residence in the twenty-six counties—were to be taken as an example of English draftsmanship, I should strongly object to it. It seems to me utterly unlike our ordinary ideas of drafting a clause of this kind to apply the word "domicile" to subsection (1), and to apply the words "permanently resident" to subsection (2). But I can see that there is a great advantage in following the Irish Statute in that respect, and if the Irish are pleased with it, I think we can, at any rate, say that the form of
  1278
  it is due to an Irish view, and we shall leave it where it stands.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: As I anticipated, what the Lord Chancellor has said quite meets my point. The reason why I strongly urge the House to accept the Amendment without more ado is that, so far as subsection (1) is concerned, a man who reads it can apply what it says without consulting anybody. He knows where he was born, when he was born and where he resided. Since he knows all those things, he can easily find out for himself whether he comes within subsection (1) or not. Thai is the only point I ventured to urge earlier, and I think the Lord Chancellor has met it completely. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, that the poor fellow has to scratch his head and say: "One minute they ask me where I am domiciled, and the next where I am permanently resident." That is due to the peculiar language of Eire Statutes, and I agree that "domicile" is not the right word at all. Some people use "domicile" as though it meant the number of the house in the street in which they happen to live, very much as a French policeman will ask: "Where is your domicile tonight?" That is not the meaning of the English word at all. But, on the whole, I think it is better to copy the language of the Eire Act. Really the test is the same in both cases. As for subsection (2), I have nothing to add. It is a most remarkable example of draftsmanship, and it makes one wonder whether one day we shall not have to have a different system rather than this legislation by reference which results in the ordinary person who reads an Act of Parliament not having a glimmering of what it is all about.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 25), Bill reported with an Amendment: Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
  4.4 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  [The References are to Bill No. 57]
  Clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
  ("Provided always that in the case of a dwelling-house the first letting of which occurred between the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and forty-five in consequence of the landlord serving in any of His Majesty's forces or otherwise being required to reside elsewhere than in the dwelling-house by reason of circumstances arising out of the war, the rent so determined as aforesaid shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house whether the same shall be greater or less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section.")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because the Amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Clause.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist upon this Amendment. I have not had previous experience of dealing with this particular procedure and I hope the House will assist me if I go astray. I would recall to the House that Clause 1 of the Bill enables Tribunals to determine the reasonable rents for premises with rateable values within the limits of the Rent Restrictions Acts and let for the first time since 1939. Apart from Clause 1, the rents of the premises in question would be determined by the first lettings. They could not in any case be raised except to the limited extent permitted by the Rent Restrictions Acts. But, apart from Clause 1, in many cases they would be too high, owing to the great shortage of houses since 1939 which in many cases, as we all know, produced
  1280
  very high first lettings. The Bill seeks to mitigate that evil and Clause 1 does so in this particular connection.
  If your Lordships will forgive me for reminding you of one aspect of our last discussion, as the House is aware, the difficulty is that this is not a general attempt to do justice between landlords and tenants. I must repeat that, although I said it last time and the Lord Chancellor also said it many times. That will require far more comprehensive legislation, after a review of something like 8,000,000 cases. This Bill is concerned simply with certain grave injustices suffered by tenants. That is the purpose of the Bill, and that is particularly the purpose of this clause. The Amendment picks out one particular class of landlord, and says that he should be allowed to charge a reasonable rent to relieve hardship in one particular case, and I think that is not disputed. That is the Amendment to which the House agreed last time, in spite of the views of the Government. We have fully set out on other occasions the reasons why we feel it would be impossible to make one exception of that kind. In saying that, I desire to repeat an expression of our sympathy for those who perhaps did valiant war service, but I cannot allow our sympathy to take effect in any special measure of financial assistance.
  I also want to repeat one point which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made with some emphasis on the last occasion, because I think the first time we discussed it I did not make it plain enough; and there still seems to be some misunderstanding in another place. It was not the inclusion of the so-called "Communist" Amendment that prevents these particular landlords from raising rents. These particular landlords would in any event be precluded from raising the rents beyond the figure fixed by the first letting. They would be precluded from doing that by the general operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts. May I repeat yet again that the landlords in question are not put in any worse position by anything in the present Bill, and we do not think it is fair to put them in a better position than other landlords until the comprehensive legislation comes along? I would add only that I feel these discussions will not have proved in vain because, when the comprehensive

  1281
  legislation does come along, there will be no possible excuse for not giving the fullest consideration to the points so forcibly raised from the other side of the House.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I very much regret that the Government—and it is the Government in another place because they moved their supporters to reject it—have not accepted this Amendment. I am sorry that second thoughts did not prevail and that we did not get this small but just Amendment to the whole purview of the Rent Acts. I notice that a point was made by the Minister in another place that the Amendment which your Lordships passed here was not concise enough and that it would have been a difficult matter to work. I disagree with that view. I know the noble Lord has not made that point to-day. It is quite simple to ascertain whether the owner was a member of His Majesty's Forces, and it is merely a question of fact as to whether or not the owner was required by reason of the exigencies of the war to move from his house. If our words were not effective and the Minister had the will to produce better, he has the way, because the whole knowledge of the Parliamentary draftsmen is at his disposal. We were not attempting in this regard to deal with large landlords. We were attempting to deal with the case of houses in large cities and in other parts of the country from which evacuation took place. They were first let at times when there was a superfluity of houses and not a scarcity; and the Rent Acts, in their whole essence, are designed really to deal with scarcity conditions. It seemed to us only justice that the rent obtained at the first letting in places from which evacuation had taken place should not for ever be the standard rent, and that it should be permissible for the tribunal to ascertain whether that first rent was a reasonable rent and be able to put it up or down; if it were too low the tribunal ought to be able to amend it, just as they should if it were too high.
  What is going to be the effect not only on the owners—I prefer to speak of "owners" rather than "landlords," because "landlords" may suggest people who have extensive properties—but also
  1282
  on the tenants? Our Amendment could be applied only to an owner who had himself been in occupation of one of these houses. In other words, we were dealing with the small man. That man is still the owner and still has a remedy open: he can claim possession of the house for himself on the grounds of greater hardship. But if he does that, the tenant will be worse off than if he were asked to pay a reasonable rent, as might happen under our Amendment. Many of these small owners cannot afford to take unreasonably low rents for property in which they may have placed the whole or a great part of their savings. So, once again, you Lordships' House, by sending forward this Amendment to another place, has been standing up, not for the large landlord but for the right of the small man, the man whom I venture to suggest is great in the framework of our society; he is, as a rule, a man who has a real stake in the country but prefers to be independent of a landlord and so has bought his own house to live in himself. I regret to think that the Government, in rejecting this Amendment, has been living up to Mr. Shinwell's remark, made, I think, somewhere in Kent about a couple of years ago, that for this kind of people he did not care a "tinker's cuss."
  It is all very well for the noble Lord opposite, in the bland and delightful manner in which he spoke to-day, to say that these people had his sympathy; but His Majesty's Government could have done these people a better turn than to reject this Amendment, which was designed to help them. I see it was suggested in another place that many ex-Service men might be tenants of these houses, but I cannot think that many people who served in the recent war could possibly have become tenants between the relevant dates in the Amendment, which were September 1, 1939, and August 14, 1945. The majority of the people—let us be quite clear about this—who would have been helped had the other place accepted our Amendment would have been ex-Service men. Here again we find that the Government are turning down a concrete action to help ex-Service men and to help those who have to suffer financial losses because they were called away to serve their country in the Armed Forces.

  1283
  We do not wish it to be said, however, that we in this House have been responsible for holding up this piece of legislation while at the same time we are in agreement with other parts of the Bill—some of which have our full support. I think that those for whom I speak can, however, claim, and justly claim, that they have done their best to obtain justice in this matter for the ex-Service men to whom I referred, and I suggest that, having done that, we should leave the matter where it is and hope that within a year we shall have a Government in this country who not only express sympathy towards these men but show it in a practical manner by their acts.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sure we all agree with the closing words of the noble Lord opposite, but whether exactly in the sense that he intended I am not prepared to say. We all hope to see a Government in power within a year which will do their best for the ex-Service man, but I fear there will be considerable disagreement as to what is the right Party colour for that Government. I am sure we are all equally anxious to do justice to the ex-Service man. I do not desire to secure any advantage over the noble Lord, but I cannot allow him to secure any advantage over me. I appreciate the good case he has put—argued, if I may say so, with great skill, but I would just take him up on one word which he employed, which was to the effect that this legislation would tie the rents in question down "for ever." I do not think that that was really in the noble Lords' mind, but the expression "for ever" did come into his speech. He and I are both aware that when this comprehensive legislation comes along there will be a good opportunity for reviewing these rents along with other rents, with a view to putting them up or down as the case may be. I do not think there is any difference between us in the matter of interpretation, but the noble Lord's words may be misconstrued outside this House. With those remarks I wish to thank the noble Lord for his friendly treatment of a difficult subject.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if I may speak again by leave of the House, I meant that we had this opportunity of dealing with the matter now. Nothing in legislation lasts for ever and in that
  1284
  respect I am quite in agreement with the noble Lord.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Page 14, line 20, insert as a new clause:
  Amendment of 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 34
  (".—(1) Where the Tribunal is satisfied on the application of a lessor that the net annual sum received by him in respect of a dwelling-house in respect of which he is under a contractual obligation to provide services was less during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine (in this section referred to as ("the later year") than the net annual sum received in respect of the dwelling-house during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-nine (in this section referred to as "the earlier year") by reason of the increased cost of providing such services in the later year over the cost of providing similar services in the earlier year the Tribunal may notwithstanding the provisions of the principal Acts increase the rent payable in respect of the dwelling-house to such an extent that if the rent had been so increased during the later year the net annual sum which would have been received by the lessor during that year would have been equal to but not greater than the net annual sum received by him during the earlier year.
  (2) In this section the expression "lessor" means the lessor for the purposes of the Act of 1946. The expression "services" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1946. The expression "contractual obligation" includes an obligation to which a lessor is subject by virtue of the provisions of section fifteen of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The expression "net annual sum" means as regards the later year and the earlier year the rent payable for the dwelling-house after deducting therefrom the cost of providing the said services and any sums payable in respect of rates.")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
  Because it is inexpedient to make provision as respects a particular class of landlord.
  4.20 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, this is an Amendment in which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has taken a very great interest. I can hardly think that, if he were aware that this Amendment was being discussed now, he would not be here at this time. Perhaps a certain dilatoriness on my part now will be forgiven while attempts are made to obtain the attendance of the noble Viscount. The main point here, with which the noble Viscount is very well acquainted, is by now familiar to the House. The particular hardship,

  1285
  real or alleged, arises most obviously in the case of owners of flats. In this House we have had this in mind when discussing this Amendment, or the principle at stake, on previous occasions. The broad contention that I laid before the House just now applies here also. As in the matter of the last Amendment, it may be a case here of hardship. I am bound to say that, since this first came under public discussion, we have not had much evidence that there are numbers of cases in this connection, but I am not denying that there might well be some cases of this sort. Here again, I am afraid that we cannot begin to make an exception in favour of a particular class of landlord. Perhaps some noble Lords would feel that, if we were going to make an exception, the last Amendment provided a stronger opportunity. Others would say that this Amendment is, on the whole, rather stronger. Be that as it may, I must repeat that this is not the time to attempt to remedy all the injustices which may or may not exist as between landlords and tenants. This Bill has the limited purpose of removing the hardships of a certain kind of tenant. This particular hardship, real or alleged, will also be carefully considered when the comprehensive legislation comes along. Here again, I should say that our discussions will not at all have been wasted if the point has been ventilated in a way that will make discussion easier at that time.
  I have only one further point to make in this connection—a point which I do not recall making, or hearing made, in this House when we discussed this matter before. It may be felt—I am not saying that some sensible and honest men would not feel this, whereas other sensible and honest men would feel the opposite—that it is particularly hard on the owners of flats not to be allowed some compensation for the increased cost of services which they are to provide as a contractual duty. I would only point out what I do not think has been pointed out before in this House—that, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, any increased cost of providing ordinary repairs is not treated as a reason for raising rents, even though a contractual duty exists to provide them. Therefore, there is nothing exceptional here in saying that the provision of something as a contractual duty should not be
  1286
  used as a reason for raising rents. For repairs to be treated as a reason for raising rents under the Rent Restrictions Acts, they must be structural alterations or improvements. Therefore, if we made an exception in this one case, we should soon find that in practice we were dealing with a whole class of ordinary repairs. That is an additional reason for our not being able to see our way to do as the noble Viscount suggested. Apart from that, in all honesty, we would not be able to start off under this Amendment and make an exception favourable to a particular class of landlord.
  I am sorry that the noble Viscount, who I know takes an intense interest in this Amendment, should not have joined us. It is through no desire of mine that he is not here. Other noble Lords have entered the Chamber, but not the noble Viscount, whose feelings, both inside and outside the House, are of the warmest. However, I do not wish to detain your Lordships indefinitely. Therefore, I beg to move that we do not insist on this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Pakenham).
  4.25 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I can join with the noble Lord opposite in at any rate one matter—disappointment that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, is not here, because this is an Amendment which I know he had very much at heart and of which, indeed, he was the mover when this Bill was previously before this House. The strength of this Amendment that we made in this House—contrary, it is quite true, to the Government's wishes—was this: that we had done this in regard to houses above the limits of the Rent Restrictions Acts, when we were dealing with, I think, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Bill. The fact that the various charges—the rate of wages for the liftman, the different services to be provided and the price of coal—had gone up was to be taken into consideration in fixing the rents.
  The second reason why there appeared considerable justification for making this Amendment was the unanimous Report of the Ridley Committee on this point. That Report said that this particular grievance should receive the highest

  1287
  priority when the Rent Restrictions Acts were revised. It is interesting to note that one member of the present Government was a member of the Ridley Committee which signed the Report, and another member of the Committee was also, until quite recently, a member of the Government. So I should have thought their views would carry weight. I agree also with the noble Lord opposite that the previous Amendment was probably the stronger of the two. It may be that, as I was the father of that one and the noble Viscount was the father of the present one, I preferred mine to his. I still think that it is only just to allow increased charges for these contractual services to be made.
  I think also that it is discouraging to any private land owners, who in future might think of putting in better facilities for their weekly wage-earning tenants, or for their middle-class tenants, not to allow this Amendment. One of the aspects of our housing that we want to encourage—indeed, the Minister has been making grants to local authorities to encourage it—is, in the case of a large block of tenement flats, the provision of some form of lift to take people to the top of the building, whether they be the richer or the poorer members of the community. It is a very difficult task to get a perambulator, for instance, up the outside staircases of some of the old-fashioned blocks of flats in the Metropolis. I believe that anybody who provides these services for that type of tenement ought to be encouraged—and not discouraged, as he may well be, by the knowledge that, if charges increase, he will still have to carry on those same services without securing the wherewithal in the rent to pay for them. That is my main reason for regretting that the Government have not seen their way to accept this Amendment. Their refusal to do so will discourage those who ought to be encouraged to provide for the cheaper rented houses the same facilities as many of us enjoy at the more expensive places. At the same time, we do not want to hold up this measure as a whole, and I suggest that we should not insist upon this Amendment.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, here again I would like to thank the noble Lord for his attitude. He has obviously given a great deal of thought to this
  1288
  matter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, can rightly feel that the case has been put with great effect, in spite of his regrettable, and to me inexplicable, absence. I saw him not long ago. I put some points to him, and I do not flatter myself that I made the slightest impression upon him. It seems to me particularly strange that he should have abstained from this crucial discussion. I would mention only one further point, in view of what the noble Lord has said. We had a reference before to the emphasis, which I do not in the least attempt to whittle down, placed on this kind of point by the Ridley Committee. I have not the Ridley Report beside me, but to the best of my belief there is no suggestion in the Ridley Report that this matter should be dealt with in advance of a general review. The Ridley Report proposed that there should be this general review and that there should be comprehensive legislation. I am fairly sure that the Ridley Report never suggested that in advance of comprehensive legislation of this kind one point should be singled out and treated in isolation. However, having said that, I thank the noble Lord once again for helping us with the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LICENSING BILL
  4.34 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I would point out that there is a Royal Commission at five o'clock. It might be convenient to adjourn at about ten minutes to five until after the Commission, and if I have not finished my oration, which is a rather long one, perhaps I may go on with it after that short interval. This Bill, though not a measure for a fundamental alteration of the general licensing laws, covers a fairly wide and varied range of matters. It falls into three parts—namely, Parts I, II and III. Part I is the controversial part; Parts II and III are, in the main, uncontroversial, and perhaps I may say something in the first instance about Part II and Part III.
  Part II of the Bill arises from two recommendations of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, of which the

  1289
  late Lord du Parcq, whose loss we feel so deeply, was chairman. In that Report the Commission pointed out that some limitation on the size of licensing benches was desirable, and they recommended that county petty sessional divisions having ten or more justices on the active list should exercise their licensing powers through a committee elected by the justices from among themselves. At present all those justices on the active list in petty sessional divisions who are not statutorily disqualified for acting in licensing matters are licensing justices, and on occasions as many as fifty justices have sat on the licensing bench in a London division. The Bill is not, however, limited to this point, but applies the principle to licensing authorities as a whole in both counties and county boroughs, by providing that not only the licensing justices but also the confirming and compensation authorities shall always he committees. The two latter bodies in counties will be a committee of quarter sessions, and in county boroughs a committee of the whole body of justices. These proposals, which are contained in Clauses 9 to 13, go further than the recommendations of the Royal Commission but are in accordance with their spirit and will clear away a whole mass of complications from the existing law as respects constitution of licensing authorities. I may add that the proposals are acceptable to the Magistrates' Association and to the Justices Clerks' Society, with whom ale Home Secretary has had discussions.
  The Bill, does not at present deal with non-county boroughs. The reason for this is that the Roche Committee recommended that the smaller non-county boroughs should no longer have separate Commissions of the Peace. The Justices of the Peace Bill will embody the Government's proposal in this connection, which will fall to be debated on that Bill. No doubt this Bill will be before your Lordships in the next two or three days, but I feel sure it will only cause confusion to discuss the licensing arrangements in non-county boroughs, and we therefore leave the position in non-county boroughs untouched at this stage. But we hope that the position will be clarified by the time the Licensing Bill reaches the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
  The second recommendation of the Royal Commission is in paragraph 128 of
  1290
  their Report, which deals with the question of disqualification of justices for acting in licensing matters. Section 40 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 disqualifies for practically all licensing work a justice who, inter alia, is a shareholder in any company which is brewer, distiller or retailer of intoxicating liquor; but there is an exemption for railway shareholders. The reason is, of course, the very small extent to which railways are concerned in the liquor business in comparison to the whole of their business. The Royal Commission recommended that this exemption should be extended to shareholders in co-operative societies and that consideration should be given to the question whether the exemption should be extended to all cases where shares are held by a trustee and not beneficially, or where the shares are in an undertaking where dealing with intoxicating liquor is not a substantial part of the business. Your Lordships will find that Clause 18 deals with that point. The remainder of Part II, except for Clause 17, tidies up in several minor respects the relevant provisions of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910. Clause 17 provides for the payment of expenses to members of Scottish licensing courts and courts of appeal by the town and county councils which at present meet the general expenses of these courts.
  The provisions of Part III, except those dealing with or related to the question of hours of sale and supply of liquor at certain premises in Central London, may be summarised as follows. Clause 29 deals with the so-called "bottle shops"—that is to say, retailers' premises where, by virtue of Section 111 (1) of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, wines and spirits are sold for off-consumption under an excise licence only, no justices' licence being required. This has long been recognised to be an anomaly, and magistrates, the Temperance Party and a considerable part of the licensed trade itself—a remarkable combination, if I may say so—have frequently urged that, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Licensing, 1929–31, these premises should be brought under the control of the licensing justices. The clause provides accordingly.
  Clause 30 prohibits the employment of persons under eighteen in the bars of licensed premises. It has long been recognised as anomalous that persons

  1291
  under eighteen could be so employed, having regard to the fact that the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Act, 1923, prohibits them from obtaining or being served with liquor in a bar; and the clause implements a recommendation in the recently published Report of the Gowers Committee. Clauses 31 to 37 contain various provisions to assist the work of licensing planning committees established under the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1945 and 1946. It will be recalled that the Act of 1946, which itself provided some additional elasticity in licensing planning machinery, was a House of Lords measure which I introduced on April 4, 1946, and which, unlike some of the Bills which I introduce, received a cordial welcome from all sides of the House.
  Clause 38 should commend itself in particular to the Lords Spiritual. The Act of 1910 provides that notices relating to a considerable number of licensing matters must be posted on the door of the principal church or chapel of the parish. Literal observance of this requirement sometimes leads to defacement of historic church doors, and the clause accordingly provides that notices may be posted near the door. Clause 39 is designed to secure greater uniformity in the week-day permitted hours in the metropolis (broadly speaking the administrative County of London) by providing that the latest week-day closing time shall not be earlier than 10.30 p.m. Clause 40 proposes to regularise existing licensing practices in the Scilly Isles.
  Attention may now be turned to Clauses 19 to 28. They are designed to replace by permanent legislation Defence Regulation 42C (which empowers the police, if so authorised by the Home Secretary, to close undesirable night resorts) and, in particular, to provide, under careful safeguards and control, for reasonable demands for facilities for the supply of liquor at night with meals, music and dancing in Central London. The main outline of the proposals is as follows. Clauses 19 and 20 provide for the grant of "special hours certificates" for certain classes of hotels, restaurants and clubs in a part of the metropolis specified by order of the Home Secretary. The part proposed to be specified is little more than the City of Westminster, where
  1292
  the main "night life" of London takes place, but the northern boundary of that City runs along the middle of Oxford Street and some extension will be needed there and possibly also to include the hotels around Russell Square.
  In the case of the hotels and restaurants, the special hours certificate will be granted by the licensing justices if they are satisfied that a music and dancing licence is in force; that the premises are structurally adapted and bona fide used or intended to be used for dancing and substantial refreshment to which the sale of intoxicating liquor is ancillary; and that the premises pay, or that the Secretary of State certifies that they could have paid, reduced excise licence duty on the grounds that the receipts from liquor were less than half (for a hotel) or less than three-fifths (for a restaurant) of the total receipts. There are some differences in the provisions as respects clubs. First, the special hours certificate will be granted by the stipendiary magistrates who deal with the registration of clubs. Secondly, as clubs do not usually have a music and dancing licence (since their dances are not open to the public) it has been agreed with the London County Council that a certificate should be required that the premises fulfil the Council's requirements for the grant of a music and dancing licence. Thirdly, no counterpart has been devised to the provisions as respects hotels and restaurants relating to the extent to which receipts come from intoxicating liquor, but the Home Secretary has promised that further consideration will be given to this point. Finally, the police are given the same right of entry to clubs having a special hours certificate as to licensed premises. At present they may enter a club only under a search warrant.
  Clause 21 provides that special hours certificates may be granted for part only of the year—some premises may not need them except in the tourist season. Clause 22 specifies the special hours. Broadly speaking, drinking in restaurants is already allowed up to 12.30 a.m., and the effect of the clause is that premises where drinking is to be allowed to 2.30 a.m. will have to give up one hour before lunch and one hour before dinner, so that the proposals involve no lengthening of the hours. The special hours are confined to the restaurant where the dancing is provided and, if the dancing

  1293
  ceases, the permitted hours are also to cease. On Saturdays the supply of liquor will cease at midnight and consumption at 12.30 a.m., as under the present law. Clause 23 empowers the Commissioner of Police to apply for revocation of a special hours certificate if the premises have not been used as intended or the permitted hours not observed, and Clause 24 contains supplementary provisions. In connection with these clauses the Home Secretary has promised to consider whether further safeguards are needed against the issue of special hours certificates to undesirable clubs, and whether it can be made clear that dancing means dancing by a reasonable number of members of the public or club.
  Clause 25 proposes to put a stop to bottle party practices. Subsection (8) provides that it shall come into operation on January 1, 1950. This will give time to bottle parties, which are able to do so, to get registered as clubs and otherwise qualify for a special hours certificate—Defence Regulation 42C, will still be in force to deal with undesirable bottle parties. Clause 26 contains supplementary provisions, including powers to justices to grant a search warrant, and Clauses 27 and 28 deal with refreshment houses under the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860. These are premises, not licensed for the sale of liquor, which are kept open for public refreshment, resort or entertainment at any time between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. A number of undesirable refreshment houses (chiefly disreputable cafés in London and the larger provincial seaports) have been closed under Defence Regulation 42C, and the penalties contained in the Act of 1860 for misconduct of refreshment houses are both inadequate and inconsistent. It is therefore proposed to stiffen the penalties and make them more uniform. The proposals, as a whole, may, I feel sure, be confidently commended to the House as a means not only of suppressing long standing abuses, but of providing a positive and practical solution to the problems which have given rise to the abuses.
  As that finishes what I have to say about Part II and Part III of the Bill, I think that this would be a convenient moment at which to adjourn for the Royal Commission.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

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

  Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure),

  Milk (Special Designations),

  British Film Institute,

  War Damage (Public Utility Undertakings, &c.),

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions),

  Agricultural Marketing,

  Commonwealth Telegraphs,

  Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board Order Confirmation (Special Procedure),

  Grimsby Corporation,

  University of Nottingham.

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  LICENSING BILL
  5.10 p.m.
  Debate on Motion for Second Reading resumed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will now turn to Part I of the Bill. When the proposals for State management of the liquor trade in new towns were made public some six months ago, it was alleged in some quarters that the country was greatly agitated by them. It was suggested that they were the first step towards nationalisation of the liquor trade and even, in some unspecified way, a dark threat to the liberties of the subject. But since then the Bill has been most carefully scrutinised and fully discussed in the House of Commons; the general agitation has died away, almost as rapidly as it sprang up, and, while the question is still one upon which there is general divergence of opinion, it is possible to consider in their true perspective the reasons for the Government's proposals and the way in which it is intended to operate them.
  The new towns—whose conception owes so much to the Reports of the New Towns Committee over which Lord Reith presided—are not simply additional towns to those already existing. They are intended, in the words of the terms of reference of the Reith Committee, to be

  1295
  "established and developed as self-contained and balanced communities for working and living."
  It will be generally agreed that the arrangements for the development of the new towns must include measures to secure that the places where liquor is sold will best accord in their number, nature and distribution with local needs and developments. It seemed to us, however, that the existing licensing law would be inadequate to secure that plans for the provision for licensed premises could be worked out and implemented alongside, and as part of, the general development of the new towns. The licensing justices cannot initiate proposals: they can only adjudicate on applications which come before them. In fact, the Brewers' Society themselves drew attention to the inadequacy of the ordinary law in the discussions on new towns which they initiated with the Home Secretary in 1946 and 1947. Their proposal—which is the one favoured by the Opposition—was to apply to the new towns the principles of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1945 and 1946, by setting up licensing planning committees, consisting of representatives of the licensing justices and the new town development corporations, who would be responsible for planning the number, nature and distribution of licensed premises. It was also proposed that some provision should be made for licences to be removed from old areas to the new towns so as to follow movements of population. The Government gave very careful consideration to these proposals but came to the conclusion that they would not be a satisfactory solution. In so far as they were based on identifying licences with movements of population, they presented very great difficulties.
  As regards the first part of the proposal, while a licensing planning committee could plan the provision of licensed premises, the question whether the plan could be put into effect would depend upon the willingness of a number of individual owners and licensees to carry it out. Moreover, the Licensing Planning Acts are framed as temporary measures to meet the special circumstances of war-damaged areas, whereas what is needed for the new towns is machinery to cover long-term developments, including sub-
  1296
  sequent readjustments of the original plans which may be necessary.
  In these circumstances, the Government came to the conclusion that, provided as they are out of public money, the best course in regard to the new towns was to extend to them the principle of State management. State management of the liquor trade is not, of course, a new conception, nor is it in fact an exclusively Socialist conception. Indeed, it had been suggested as early as 1946 by an influential deputation which the late Earl of Lytton had intended to lead. In his absence through indisposition it was led by Doctor J. J. Mallon, Warden of Toynbee Hall. As the House will recall, it came into operation in the Carlisle area and two areas in Scotland as long ago as 1916, under the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) which had been set up under an Act of 1915. When the Board was wound up in 1921, the Licensing Act of that year provided that the schemes of State management should be continued by the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland respectively. The scheme has thus been in force for over thirty years, and under Governments of nearly all Parties. The Royal Commission on Licensing, 1929 to 1931, which was very favourably impressed with the success of the Carlisle scheme, recommended that public ownership should be applied elsewhere in circumstances which would submit the system to a further test, both in a social and a financial sense.
  In the light of these considerations, it will be seen how unfounded is any suggestion that the provisions of Part I represent the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation of the drink trade. Part I is confined exclusively to the new towns and the existing State management districts. Moreover, with one exception, no new power is taken by the Secretary of State. The exception is the provision in paragraph 9 of the Schedule, enabling instruments to be signed on behalf of the Home Secretary. This power has always existed as regards the Secretary of State for Scotland. In fact, the powers taken in the Bill are in some respects less than those contained in the Act of 1921.
  Secondly, I would emphasise that State management does not mean remote bureaucratic control from Whitehall. Section 16 of the Act of 1921 contained

  1297
  provisions for the appointment by the Secretaries of State of local advisory committees in each of the State management districts to advise them as to the operation of the schemes. Subsections (6) to (8) of Clause 1 give the new town development corporations the initiative in formulating, after full consultation and public advertisement, schemes for the constitution of these committees, and in the existing districts a similar local initiative is accorded by subsection (9) to the existing local advisory committees who are themselves already representatives of the main authorities in their areas.
  The Home Secretary has indicated that he expects these committees to be constituted on as wide a basis as possible. They will include, in addition to the representatives of the development corporations, those of the licensing justices and local authorities having jurisdiction in the area, of churches and voluntary organisations, of trade councils and of persons who are to be employed under the scheme. Not merely the original layout of the scheme, but any matter connected with its administration, will be within the purview of the committees, and they will have full initiative to raise any matters they wish, as well as to make recommendations on matters which may be referred to them for specific advice. There will be the widest scope for expression of local opinion, both as to the number, nature and distribution of licensed premises in the new towns, and also on the question of their type of management. In fact, the opportunity will be considerably greater than under the ordinary licensing law, where expression of public opinion is limited to supporting or opposing any individual applications which may come before the licensing justices.
  As regards administration of the State management schemes as a whole, it may be mentioned that there is a State management districts council, a non-statutory body which advises the Secretary of State on matters of general policy. The council at present includes representatives of the brewing industry and of the general public, as well as official representatives. It is proposed to widen it by including persons directly representing the existing and new State management districts, who will be chosen from among nominations submitted by the local advisory commit-
  1298
  tees. In the earlier attacks on State management, it was alleged that the unfortunate consumer would have no choice but to drink Government beer. It is true that there is a State brewery in Carlisle, but the Home Secretary has indicated that he has no intention of brewing beer in the new town areas unless—which he trusts is a most unlikely contingency—the brewing trade should make difficulties about supplying the State management houses. So far from thrusting Government beer on the customers in the State management areas, he intends to supply any brand of beer for which there is a reasonable economic demand.
  As to the position of existing licensees in the new towns, under Clause 2 (1) (a) they will be entitled to carry on their business—subject, of course, to the control of the licensing junices—unless and until their premises are acquired under the provisions of Clause 3. As already indicated, the Home Secretary will look to the local advisory committee for advice on questions of acquisition. He has, moreover, promised that as long notice as possible will be given to any licensees whose premises are to be acquired, and also that he will, so far as practicable, offer them the opportunity of continuing under State management; and Clause 4 (1) contains an express provision on this latter point. The Home Secretary also asked the development corporations if they would so far as practicable provide alternative domestic accommodation for a licensee whose premises had been acquired by the State and who was unable or unwilling to continue under State management. The corporations readily agreed, and a provision to that effect is contained in subsection (2) of Clause 4.
  A word should perhaps be added about the position of clubs in the State management districts. Under Clause 2 (1) (a) existing clubs will not be affected by State management—and, unlike licensed premises, there is no power for the State to acquire or to run clubs. Under Clause 2 (1) (b) the supply of liquor in new clubs, as in the new licensed premises, will require the authority of the Secretary of State, and this will be one of the matters on which the local advisory committee will make recommendations. The case for State management in the new towns rests on the following main grounds. I believe it to be agreed on all

  1299
  sides that the ordinary law is not adequate to deal satisfactorily with the licensing problems in these areas. The only alternative which has been suggested to State management is a system of licensing planning committees, who would be able to plan, but whose plans would not necessarily be implemented. Under State management, on the other hand, there will be secured both the full expression of public opinion through the local advisory committees—which will be more broadly based than licensing planning committees—and the power to implement the proposals which best accord with local needs and the general social structure of the new towns. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  5.27 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, let me say at the outset that this Bill, unlike another Bill now before your Lordships' House, the Iron and Steel Bill, comes here after full discussion in another place—and a full discussion to which the Minister responsible has obviously listened and has, in consequence, agreed to some quite material alterations in the Bill as originally introduced in another place. Whether or not these concessions were brought about by weight of argument or by the considerable agitation which arose against the original proposal, and to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, one does not know. But, in passing, let me say that some of the suggestions by Government supporters as to how that agitation—and there obviously was one—arose, have not in my view very much backing. Some of them have said that this was a brewers' agitation; that, I suggest, is because some of them cannot conceive that a man who has all the independence which a licensee has under existing conditions—indeed, he is called a landlord, which means that he is pretty independent—
  LORD CALVERLEY: Except when he is tied.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: —does not, if I may continue my sentence, relish the idea of being a mere manager. In a large number of cases where a man is tied he is certainly secured for his supplies he
  1300
  is secured for the repairs and upkeep of his house. Indeed, the tied house system, if I may be led away to refer to it, is an instance of good planning, because if a brewery has a certain number of tied houses, it knows what its output is likely to be and it can keep the people in the brewery employed. That is automatic planning, and it works much better than a great deal of the State planning of which we have recently heard so much—and which in many cases has had lamentable consequences. I did not intend to say anything of that sort, but the noble Lord having interrupted me, I was led on to speak of this matter, which is slightly outside the context of this Bill. However, as I have said, owing probably to the spontaneous uprising of the licensees in the trade, and of many of the customers, the Bill has been considerably improved during its passage through another place and as it comes to us it is a much better Bill than it was when originally introduced. That is where the value of open public debate comes in, and it is an instance of democracy working properly.
  We have to consider this Bill as it comes to us; and the first provision of which I should like to speak is the problem of licensed houses in the new towns. I may be one of those who are not in full agreement with the proposal made by the noble and learned Viscount, because I cannot see that a new town needs to be dealt with differently from some of the large extensions to old towns. Indeed, in some cases the number of people living in extensions to old towns will be considerably more than the whole population of one of these new towns. Let me take the case of the area comprised in the district of Southall and Uxbridge, originally in the old Uxbridge division, which I had the honour to represent. When I first went to that division in 1929 the electorate was under 50,000 people. When the division was split up at the time that war broke out ten years later, there was an electorate of nearly 200,000 people. That means that the electorate had grown four times in size within ten years. Huge areas of that countryside, as noble Lords who know it probably realise, had been built over, and almost the equivalent of new towns had arisen there. But the licensing justices, with the assistance of those who were prepared to put up new public-houses,

  1301
  had adequately dealt with all that new area, and the existing machinery of licensing justices had worked extremely well.
  Again, had it been thought that in the new towns the development corporations—who, after all, will control all the undeveloped land—should be brought in, there were the provisions, to which the Lord Chancellor has referred, in the Licensing Planning Act of 1945. They could well have been invoked, bringing in the development corporations, the local authorities and the licensing justices—the last two, of course, are to be brought in in the blitzed areas. Indeed, there has not at any time, I think, been any criticism that the brewers are not fully prepared to do what they can to help in facilitating the carrying out of the provisions of that Act. But we are back once again to the old conception that in order to have anything nice and neat, tidy and orderly, there must be control from Whitehall.
  It is true that under this plan the development corporations submit a scheme and recommend an advisory committee but in every case it is the Home Secretary who has the last word, and who takes, or does not take, as he thinks fit, the advice of this advisory committee. So the general effect of this Bill is that, in these new areas, the Government are once again limiting the powers and the responsibilities of local government, and centralising another activity in the Whitehall area—a tendency of which we have seen too much in the last four years. Indeed, the title of the district goes to show that. It is not an area that is to be managed by locally elected persons; it is called a "State management district," implying that the planning of the licensing facilities there is taken out of the hands of the locally elected people and put into the hands of State management.
  In the district, as we know, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is going to run such "pubs" as are built anew there. I myself see no great reason for this, because there are those who have been in this industry for years who can run public-houses and supply them far better than any of the civil servants in Whitehall know how to do—and, I should fancy, far better than the Home Secretary, whoever he is, knows how to do. For instance, we all know—and some of us may admire
  1302
  him for it—that the present occupier of that office (I am saying nothing against him personally) has been a total abstainer for years. To think of the right honourable Chuter Ede as a man who would know when a beer has gone a little bit "off" is, of course, difficult.
  However, what I object to in this Bill very much more is not the Home Secretary managing the new public-houses, but the power taken in Clause 3 of this Bill. Subsection (1) says:
  "For the purposes of his functions under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State may"—
  I leave out paragraph (a) because nobody can take any exception to that—
  "(b) subject to the provisions of this section, acquire by compulsory purchase any licensed premises in a State management district …"
  This kind of thing occurs here, and indeed it tends to occur in any Bill which deals with any kind of nationalisation proposal. And every time I read a Bill of that sort, I regard these provisions as an implicit confession that nationalisation cannot succeed unless it becomes a monopoly—because that is what this clause is intended to achieve. It cannot face free competition and, therefore, it has to take power compulsorily to acquire existing houses. Whether it is a public-house at Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead or Hatfield, if it attracts customers from these new State houses it may run the risk of being compulsorily acquired by the Home Secretary, for no other reason than that it is supplying better services to its customers and so drawing them from the State-managed "pubs." The State-managed "pubs" cannot exist unless they take over such a house—a house that has existed, perhaps, for fifty or a hundred years, or even longer than that. I think that that is really going rather far.
  By all means let us see whether the State can run a public-house in reasonable competition with private and free enterprise, but to take these powers to buy out—I suppose at the district valuer's price—a house that has been doing good trade and giving satisfaction to the local populace for a large number of years seems to me an entirely un necessary provision. What would have been said if, in the past, brewers had insisted on a monopoly for an individual firm? One of the reasons why this

  1303
  trade has been successful is that there is competition amongst the firms. In a single town one finds a number of houses serving different brands of beer. In no town have the brewers been allowed a monopoly, in the ordinary way, so why should the State claim one?
  Apart from that, another objectionable provision is the extension to these districts of the powers which the Home Secretary is taking in regard to clubs. In the ordinary way clubs have been able to register by sending particulars to the police, and if the organisers are satisfactory citizens they do not have to go through any other procedure before they can start a bona fide club. As an example, let us take the Welwyn Garden City district, which is a likely district. I think it is wrong that if somebody wanted to form a new Labour club and there was a Conservative Home Secretary, that that somebody should have to apply and obtain leave through the Conservative Home Secretary to do it. Equally it would be wrong that a Conservative club should have to get the leave of a Labour Home Secretary—I leave out the Liberal Party for the moment, if I may, because I am not sure that they have clubs with licences, and I am not sure whether they are likely to have a demand for any new members. I would like to give the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, one opening in my speech! Be that as it may, I think the principle is wrong in that respect. You might have a pacifist Home Secretary, and when a British Legion Club applied for a licence, they might be turned down. Therefore I very much dislike this new power which the Home Secretary is taking, to say what clubs shall be registered and what shall not. I think that these provisions are completely unnecessary in Part I of this Bill. I believe the matter could be dealt with better from the public's point of view, without this expansion of State management. I believe that the facilities which have been provided would have been just as good in these new towns as they were in relation to that vast increase of population which I had in my own constituency during ten of the sixteen years that I had the honour to represent it.
  My Lords, I come to the least controversial part of this Bill—namely,
  1304
  Part II. I am entirely in favour of limiting the number of justices who sit at a licensing session. Like other noble Lords in this House, I have taken part in licensing sessions, and they nearly always attract the fullest attendances of justices. Of course that is often because the teetotal justices always turn up in such large numbers that one has to have some balance of moderate opinion.
  LORD ROCHESTER: Would the noble Lord forgive me? Does he suggest that the temperance justices provide the moderate opinion?
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Not moderate. To be moderate is to take a middle course; and a middle course is not taking nothing at all. So I would certainly not say that they form the moderate element. In fact, if I may say so, living up to their convictions very often they are strenuously determined, whatever the evidence, that a new licence shall not be provided. Be that as it may (the noble Lord led me on, as I have been led on once before to-day), I appreciate the limiting of the number of justices on the licensing committees. In fact—I am not sure whether we have been right or wrong here—as the confirmation authority in the county of Dorset, we have long dealt through a licensing committee with the confirmation of licences. I hope we are in order in having done that before the introduction of this measure. I certainly think it is right to have these provisions in Part II of the Bill.
  In regard to Part III, my own view is that the Home Secretary has hit upon a happy compromise. I think it was right from one point of view that there should be a uniform hour for closing in the Metropolis. There is the difficulty at present of some places closing at 10 o'clock and others on the opposite side of the road closing at 10.30. In a number of places that has led to a rush across the street, nearly always to the embarrassment of those licensees on the side of the street which closes later, because they get a sudden flood of people coming in at the last twenty minutes of their operating time: they are completely rushed off their feet and sometimes have great difficulty in keeping order when such a thing occurs. I also like the provisions for closing down these bottle

  1305
  parties. It is the greatest waste of money to go to one of these places, and I think that a general provision to allow the properly constructed and conducted places to keep open until 2.30 a.m. is much better than having a large number of these clubs underground—not only in one sense of the word, but often physically underground, in the worst-ventilated parts of our Metropolis.
  Now, my Lords, I come to the Schedules, and perhaps I may make this comment. The provisos to the First Schedule are on page 33, but looking at the bottom of page 32 I see that paragraph 8 says:
  "Notwithstanding anything in the enactments relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor, to the sale of tobacco and to entertainments and recreation, any of the activities specified in section one of this Act and the foregoing provisions of this Schedule may be carried on by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, in premises occupied by him, without the need of any licence"—
  that I do not mind, but then one finds these words:
  "and shall not be subject to any restrictions imposed by law on the carrying on of such activities."
  That goes a bit far, does it not? We have often heard of one law for the rich and another for the poor, but we have here a law for everyone else and no law at all for the Secretary of State or for the premises which he carries on.
  A NOBLE LORD: Read on.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I know that there are some provisos, which I will certainly read. The first says:
  "any person engaged in any such activity on behalf of the Secretary of State shall be subject to any statutory provisions affecting the holders of licences, and the occupiers of premises licensed, for that activity in like manner as if he were the holder of the appropriate licence, and to any restrictions imposed by law on persons carrying on that activity. …"
  Is that intended to cover everything else which is not covered earlier? Is the Secretary of State going to get his beer and tobacco without paying excise duty, because these places will belong to him? We had better inquire into this matter more fully when we get to a later stage of the Bill.
  A number of smaller points will occur, and or them we shall put down some
  1306
  Amendments, and I have not the slightest doubt that they will be dealt with here in the same kind of spirit as that in which the Home Secretary dealt with similar matters when the Bill was before the House of Commons. All I would say, in conclusion, is that, in our view, the main matter to which Part I relates is dealt with in the wrong way. The Bill deprives the people in the new towns of one of their liberties—that is, the liberty of going to the house of any person they choose. Now they will be able to go only to a house under State management. But I would also add that this Bill has been much improved in another place, and the assurances given by the Home Secretary have, equally, gone far to remove some of the mistrust which existed. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give an unopposed Second Reading to the Bill which is before us to-day, though we may have some material points to raise when the Committee stage is reached.
  5.52 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for a very concise account of this Bill, to the provisions of which he has obviously devoted a great deal of time and thought. Licensing is, for any Government, both an inflammable and an inflammatory subject, and the reception given to this particular Ball was no exception to precedent. But I think it is true to say that much of the more violent criticism was directed either to provisions which were never in the Bill at all or else to provisions which have been either eliminated or substantially revised during the passage of the Bill through another place. Clearly, the gist of this Bill is in Part I. As regards Part II and Part III, they contain two provisions to which a good deal of public attention has been directed — the two to which Lord Llewellin has referred—that in regard to bottle-parties and that in regard to the extension of hours to approved hotels and restaurants. I think few people will be found to mourn the departure of the bottle party. I doubt whether in these days even the promoters of these functions will be found ranged along the graveside. The fact remains that they were, at best, ingenious devices for circumventing the law, and it does not advantage either Government or governed

  1307
  that the law should be successfully and systematically flouted.
  As regards the provisions concerning permissible extension of hours to certain night clubs, the Home Secretary, in coming to his decision, no doubt took into account the claims of the tourist trade in that respect, and, in spite of fierce assaults from his own side of the House, he displayed, if I may say so, his usual firmness and good sense in refusing to be deflected from his decision. I say this perhaps rather sadly, but it is a good many years now since I visited a night club. In those days, however, I never found them to be the sinks of iniquity that some people seem hopefully to imagine them to be. Although, in the interval, I may have come to know more about sinks and less about iniquity than I did then, I have no reason to think that the character of the more reputable amongst them has changed. As regards the disreputable ones, the police have ample powers, and I do not doubt they would be prepared to use them as required.
  With respect to the main part of the Bill—State ownership in the new towns—it does seem that the early history of this measure was a little peculiar. As I understand the position, the first step was the receipt of a communication by the Home Secretary from an organisation representing the brewing industry, and, upon receipt of that communication, discussions took place with the Home Office. That may be quite unexceptionable, but one would have expected the next step to be some consultation with the corporations which this Government established to control the setting-up and lay-out and working of these new towns. Apparently at that stage that was regarded as quite unnecessary, and, as I understand the position, again it was only at a considerably later stage that those in authority over the new towns were called into consultation at all. I confess that that seems to me to be an example of planning in its most Olympian form.
  The purpose of Part I of the Bill, as I gather, is really this: that it sets out to extend to each and every one of these new towns, without consideration for the views either of the corporations or of the ultimate inhabitants of those areas, what
  1308
  was instituted in 1916 as a method of dealing with an urgent situation which arose in Carlisle. I profess to speak with no authority as to the success or otherwise of the Carlisle experiment. Its supporters are entitled to say that, although it has now been in existence for more than thirty years, no one, so far as I know, has advocated its repeal. On the other hand, its opponents are entitled to say that if it really has conferred all, or a major part, of the benefits which are sometimes claimed for it, it is rather surprising that there has not been a more audible clamour from other areas of the country to have those benefits extended to them. But for the purposes of this discussion let us assume that the Carlisle experiment achieved an unqualified success. Nevertheless, is it right to follow the policy of the present Bill and apply the Carlisle system, without any freedom of choice, to each and every one of the new town areas?
  I suggest that what one might have expected the Government to do was to say to the corporations of these new towns, "We are prepared to extend to your areas the provisions of the Act of 1921, which gave statutory form to the Carlisle experiment which had originally been put into operation by means of Defence Regulations, if you, the corporations, decide you wish that done. If you do not wish that done, then you are free to make your own arrangements as you please." The action I suggest the Government should have taken might well have been followed up at a later stage by giving to those who came in and those already on the spot in areas designated for new towns an opportunity to express their own view, as an electorate, upon the system which they preferred to be applied in their own district. I can see the difficulty of asking the locals to opt for a "local" before they are in the locality. That is why I suggest that the initial decision should have been left to the corporations and that at a subsequent stage there might well have been an opportunity to the inhabitants of these towns to say, "Yea" or "Nay"—"We desire State management," or "We do not desire State management in these areas." I know it is an old fashioned doctrine that people should be given a measure of freedom of choice in these matters and one which is not at all congenial to planners, to whom neatness is all.

  1309
  It is said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that no additional powers are given to the Home Secretary by this Bill, with one immaterial exception. Those powers, when confined in their operation to a small area, such as Carlisle or Gretna, might be of no particular moment, but as soon as they begin to be extended so that they are applicable to the very considerable areas which will ultimately be covered by these new towns, they become a consideration of some importance. It is for the House to decide whether they consider it is satisfactory that the Home Secretary should be given the additional powers contained in the Second Schedule. I am thinking of such powers as that of the brewing of beer which, as has already been indicated, might be a somewhat embarrassing occupation for the present Secretary of State for Home Affairs; the providing of soda water and soft drinks, which he may find a more congenial occupation; or the conduct and management of hotels and restaurants, as to which only time would show whether they were likely to be a "home from home" or only a "Home Office from Home Office."
  Something has been said about clubs. I prefer to say no more at the moment than that I think it is a matter which might give your Lordships opportunity for consideration at a later stage whether it is suitable that clubs should be brought at all within the purview of this Bill. It is a matter for comment that neither the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, concerning these new towns, nor, so far as I know, the advice of any authoritative body, recommended this scheme, either as a whole or in part. As any scheme of this kind must have, it has the grave objection of excessive centralisation.
  We are told—and admittedly it is in the Bill—that there are to be local advisory committees and that the corporations of the towns are to have a considerable say in recommending to the Home Secretary how these local advisory committees are to be constituted. It is also the case that some—but only some; not all—of these local advisory committees will have membership of the central committee. Do not let us forget that these committees are what they are said to be, advisory, and nothing more. They leave the ultimate power, unqualified and un-
  1310
  restricted, in the hands of the Home Secretary and of the Home Secretary alone. I say this not in any way in order merely to score a passing point in debate, but with a real sense of regret, that there are some of us who, as a result of our recent experience with the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Bill, are a little apt to suspect that, although this may not apply to the present Home Secretary, he may not be Home Secretary for ever, and there are other Ministers who are more interested in arbitrary power than in objective advice.
  In the end, what I would say about the Bill is that I wish that the Government had been a little less drastic and a little more plastic in their approach to this problem. So far as noble Lords on these Benches are concerned, we think it is perhaps not quite so bad a Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was inclined at moments to contend, but certainly not so good a Bill as the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack would have had us believe.
  6.10 p.m.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, let me say at once that opinion in the Free Churches is divided as to the merits of this Bill. I believe that is equally true of the temperance movement as a whole in the country. Organisations whose avowed and central aim is complete prohibition of the liquor trade maintain hostility to the Bill. These are, however, I think, clear indications that many leaders in the temperance movement, particularly in the Churches, recognise that we may well be at the beginning of a new approach to the fiercely contested drink question. It is more and more widely held, I believe, that public ownership and disinterested control of the trade in intoxicants could and should open the way for a policy responsive to present-day knowledge of the action of alcohol on man, and close the door to a callous exploitation of human weaknesses.
  This Licensing Bill presents a clear issue. There will be licensed premises in the new towns. Are they to be tied to the brewers or owned and managed by State? In a true sense the term "tied," I submit, is the key to the situation. Regardless or unaware of the vast change in the structure of the retail drink trade

  1311
  in the last half century, it is still widely assumed that the licensee whose name appears over the door of the local public house is as independent a trader as the neighbouring newsagent or tobacconist whereas, in fact, he is at best the tenant of a brewery tied for beer, probably for spirits, possibly for soft drinks and tobacco, and even sawdust. More likely, he is simply a manager, with whose services the brewery can find ways to dispense when it will. I would remind your Lordships that there are only 700 free houses in the whole of the country; 95 per cent. of the "on-licence" premises in England and Wales are brewer owned. Thus the total net profits, retail as well as wholesale, reach the brewery which owns the "tie." The present anger of the wealthy brewing interests needs no further explanation.
  The new towns offer a new field for exploitation, and the Government wisely say, "No." As the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has just reminded us, the approach was made from the trade. The Home Secretary, in his Second Reading speech in another place, let in daylight on a characteristic move by the Brewers' Society. They took the initiative, not the Home Secretary. First by letter, and then by deputation, they asked for legislation to serve their ends. Assuming, that ultimately a million people will move out of London to the new towns in the Home Counties, the brewers requested special legislation to authorise the transfer of licences of brewer-owned properties in London to the new areas. Presumably they would thus escape the payment of the monopoly value which the State can claim when a new licence is granted; certainly they would get rid of properties declining in value and secure lucrative and exclusive trading privileges where the populations were re-established. The Home Secretary obviously surprised the promoters of this plausible claim with the reminder that the State was founding the new towns and that at Carlisle it had learnt in the course of a generation to run the liquor business in keeping with the public welfare and to the profit of the national exchequer instead of to the brewers. Judging by their trade Press, the Brewers' Society seem to have counted confidently on the co-operation of the Government. Even their own domestic difficulties were in process of settlement:
  1312
  which brewer would negotiate for which site? It is even reported that, as regards one town, the rival brewing claims had been disposed of in advance by drawing lots! And now the Home Secretary in this Bill scatters all those cheerful capitalistic anticipations. No wonder the brewers are up in arms! In my submission, the main concern of our liquor licensing code should be the maintenance of personal sobriety and public order. Carlisle has an excellent record in this respect, based on the freedom with which State monopoly can curtail known causes of intemperance and steadily advance the standard of public well-being and conduct. These things have been done. Gross redundancy of licensed premises was quickly ended; half the public-houses in the area were closed; in Carlisle City the reduction was from 119 to 59. Mixed trading in groceries and intoxicants was abolished by the cancellation of so-called "grocers' licences." Of the four local breweries, three were closed. Disinterested management was secured by ending certain incentives to sell liquor—no commissions, overt or otherwise, are paid to staffs on liquor sales, but commission is paid on food sales in public houses. Dingy bars and back-street "pubs," difficult for the police to keep under observation, have gone; so have all advertisements of liquor on licensed premises. Public health has been served by structural hygienic improvements and by provision for the supply of meals where practicable. "Soft drinks" are easily obtainable. Liquor supply in registered clubs has been brought into line with the scheme, without local friction. Police-court convictions for drunkenness throughout the last three years have averaged less than one per fortnight.
  To eliminate private profit by disinterested management, thereby removing any incentive to encourage drinking, is, I submit, clear social gain and in the best interests of the community. Another gain to record is that under this Bill there will be no opportunity to obtain grocers' or druggists' licences in the new areas. Especially do I welcome the Bill's total exclusion of young people under the age of eighteen from employment in liquor bars throughout the country, and the fact that even if no wages are paid them their employment will be illegal. Incidentally, this provision will protect young persons

  1313
  from entering the trade prior to their call-up. The provision in the Bill to establish non-alcoholic places of refreshment is also to be welcomed, for the more of such social welfare centres we can have, the better; and in that connection I am indeed glad that the Bill provides for local advisory committees, to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has referred.
  On the other hand, there are some provisions in the Bill to which I take the gravest exception, the most serious of which is the 2.30 a.m. drinks concession to certain hotels and clubs in the West End of London, albeit I agree that these special hours certificates will not be available to ordinary licensees in other parts of London or in the provinces. This extension of night club drinking facilities is indeed a retrograde step of the most serious moment. On the other hand, the fact that clubs and hotels which secure such certificates for extension of time will have to submit to police supervision is certainly a very wise provision, and much to be commended. I regret the exclusion from the Bill of the adjacent areas to the new towns, and in that connection I want to ask the Government a question. The object of the original provision, which has now been deleted from the Bill, was to protect a narrow ring round the planned areas. My question is this: How, under the existing licensing laws and town and country planning powers, will the areas immediately around the new town areas be protected from undesirable development in respect of licensed premises? In conclusion, I would express the hope that the Government, whilst meeting reasonable criticisms, will hold resolutely to the main principle of the Bill, and in that belief I support its Second Reading.
  6.22 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships more than a few moments in winding up on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House on the important Bill which we are now discussing. I am anxious to draw the attention of the House to one or two features of the measure in which we are now asked to concur. As my noble friend Lord Llewellin will have made already clear, we do not support the principles which are contained in Part I of this Bill, but we are fully prepared to admit that the Amendments
  1314
  moved in another place have done much to improve it. I trust that when we reach the Committee stage in this House, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be as receptive to Amendments as the Home Secretary was in another place.
  For years now—and it will be recalled by noble Lords of greater age than mine—the Socialist Party have constantly advocated the disinterested public management of the liquor trade. That is another way for saying that what they really require is full and complete State control. In spite of the remarks which were made by the noble and learned Viscount, I can regard this Bill only as a stepping stone in that direction. I am fortified in that belief by the remarks which were made by the Minister of Food in another place upon the Second Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill in February, 1947. I need not weary your Lordships by quoting his speech this evening, but he frankly believed in this disinterested public ownership of the liquor trade, and he also believed in the complete and full monopoly of the Secretary of State in dealing with the drink question generally. In spite of what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, I cannot believe that it is for the good of the inhabitants of the new towns that the Secretary of State should extend his control to all licensed premises and to new clubs. Nor do I believe it necessary for him to enter into this business which up to date has been almost wholly confined to private enterprise.
  Attempts have been made to justify this scheme by saying that the Brewers' Society did not believe that licences in new towns could be adequately provided under the existing law. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has interpreted their view as a proof of a need for an entirely new system which in his judgment can be met only by the imposition of State ownership. It seems to me that all that the brewers had in mind was a method analogous to the principle of licensing planning, which I have always understood was intended to meet these particular cases. Indeed, having been at the Home Office in the days when the Licensing Planning Act was introduced into your Lordships' House I believe that that scheme, with certain amendments,

  1315
  could easily be applicable to these new towns. If it could succeed in the war-damaged areas, it could equally well have succeeded in the new towns. Indeed, one of its great advantages over State ownership is that it leaves local jurisdiction in the hands of local authorities who represent their own locality.
  The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, drew your Lordships' attention to the legislation which we passed three years ago to set up new towns throughout the country to be controlled by new towns corporations. I think one would have assumed, as the noble Marquess did, that these corporations might well have played their part in the management of licensed premises. Indeed, the Act which was approved envisaged that the development corporations should be in the position to maintain public-houses and places of refreshment for the inhabitants of those areas; and I can recall no suggestion during the discussion of that Act in this House that the corporations should be restricted in any way in their management of new towns.
  About eighteen months ago, as I am informed, these new development corporations received instructions—presumably from the Minister of Town and Country Planning—to refrain from pursuing further independently the problem of licensed premises. Indeed, the chairman of one corporation has stated that the decision in favour of State ownership was taken at Cabinet level, with no prior discussion whatever with the development corporations. Apparently, these new corporations finally acquiesced in the decision which was reached, but I cannot help thinking that the proposals for State ownership of licensed premises in these new towns must have been in the minds of His Majesty's Government during the passage of the New Towns Act. In any event, we are to-day asked to brush aside the responsibilities of the corporations; and the power which they might so well have exercised has been snatched from them.
  It is true that under Clause 1 of the Bill there will be set up local advisory committees to assist the Secretary of State, but I believe the advice which they give will be of doubtful practical value, for the Secretary of State, as is made so clear in the clause, can ride
  1316
  roughshod over them in precisely the same way that he can modify any scheme they may put up. It falls to my lot to be chairman of a club organisation, and I am naturally interested in these proposals so far as they affect existing clubs and any new clubs which are likely to be set up hereafter. I can find no valid reason whatsoever which insists on the inclusion of clubs in this clause, except to screw even tighter the monopoly for which the Secretary of State has asked. It can be assumed that, after the Bill becomes an Act, a scheme similar to that operating in Carlisle will be in force; that in future it will not be possible to register any club without the consent of the Secretary of State, and that stipulations which do not exist in present club law will be made by the new State management areas.
  It is interesting, in passing, to note that of the eleven clubs in Carlisle—five of which are of 1916 origin—all but three had to agree to police inspection before the State management authority in that area would grant permission for an application for registration to be made, and during 1947 the police made sixteen visits to these three clubs. Far be it from me to criticise the chief constable, or indeed the police, but I believe that their time could have been better spent than in making these sixteen visits in one year to three clubs. After all, who is to decide upon the setting up of a political club? It will be the Home Secretary, who will be subject to great political pressure as to whether a Socialist club, or a Conservative or Liberal club, or any other kind of club of a political nature, can be set up in these districts. It seems to me that the Home Secretary has taken upon his shoulders extra difficulties which he need never have assumed. He will have to remember at the same time that similar arguments would also apply to any social club or golf club which is likely to be set up in the district, and which desires to serve intoxicating liquor.
  The Lord Chancellor, in the course of his remarks, was good enough to point out that Clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with compulsory purchase, applies only to licensed premises—that is to say, not to a club. But may I ask whether, when we come to the next stage the meaning of the words "registered club"

  1317
  will be made precisely the same as that already in existence under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act of 1910? Some of your Lordships may know that the Catering Wages Board use the term "licensed premises" to cover every conceivable building where intoxicating liquor can be sold, whether a club, a public-house, or any other such building. It seems to me desirable, for the purposes of simplification, that Departments should, if possible, use the same terms in each of their Bills or regulations.
  Lastly, I turn to Clause 30, which relates to the employment of young persons under the age of eighteen in bars on licensed premises. I understand that here again, clubs are not mentioned. At a later stage we intend to move an Amendment to this clause, but I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor can tell me to-day whether it is the intention to take a club out of the expression "bar" in subsection (5) of that clause. It is true to say, I think, that many young men who wish to qualify as club stewards or publicans enter licensed premises long before they reach the age of eighteen, and I feel it would be unfortunate if no young man were able to work in any licensed premises until after he had reached the age of twenty or until the completion of his military service, whichever was the earlier. That was a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. If a young man is to start at the age of twenty, instead of an earlier age, on the work which he has selected, it seems to me to be singularly unfortunate.
  There will be further opportunity and time for us to consider each of these clauses individually, but when I read this Bill I was reminded of those well-known words of Macaulay, which I will be bold enough to read to your Lordships:
  "Nothing is so galling to a people not broken in from birth as a paternal or in other words a meddling Government, a Government which tells them what to read and say and eat and drink and wear."
  If Macaulay were alive to-day he would have found some other apt description for what many of us believe to be a very wild and woolly scheme.
  6.36 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like briefly to reply to
  1318
  some of the points that have been raised. I am sure your Lordships will find us most ready to consider and discuss any question of detail, but it must be clearly understood that we must stand firm on the broad principle of the Bill; that is to say, we must stand firm on the principle that we have the power to take over all the public-houses in the area of the new towns. I say the "power," because the extent to which we exercise that power and the time at which we exercise it are obviously matters upon which the local advisory committee ought to be consulted and to have a say. Although the Home Secretary must have the last word, he should obviously have the greatest regard to the views of that body.
  Some of your Lordships have spoken as if it were really iniquitous that we should make up our own minds on this topic. If that be a sin we are certainly guilty of it. We have made up our minds, and made them up as clearly and firmly as we can. But it is quite wrong to say that we did not consult with the various development corporations. In fact, those consultations went on for a long time in the early part of 1947. There were six development corporations, and the net result of the consultations was that three of the six were strongly in favour of State management, one of the six was strongly opposed and two were neutral and did not know what they wanted. So we had the consultations, and after the consultations we had to make up our own mind. I venture to think that there is every case here for deciding on these lines. As I said in my original speech, these new towns are something more than merely additional towns. Incidentally, they are towns in which the taxpayers are sinking a vast sum of money.
  I went down on Saturday last to my native town of Stevenage and I there had the great honour of opening a school the like of which I have never seen; it is a splendid place, built at very great cost. I should like to think there is going to be some "pub" as good as that school: if so, I hope they will call it after me. I believe that one of the solutions of the drunkenness problem is to have decent places to which a man can go and take his wife and children and get all sorts of drinks, and not be pressed at some miserable little place to drink alcoholic drinks and nothing

  1319
  else. I personally like alcoholic drinks and I should not go to a place if I did not get them. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, likes "soft" drinks; and I hope that in these new "pubs" we shall be able to sit cheek by jowl together, and he can have his "soft" drink and I can have my "hard" drink.
  The Reid Committee recommended simply that there should be readjustment of petty sessional divisions so that the petty sessional division could cover the area of the town and nothing more. The Commission on Licensing, when they were asked whether the advisory committees' administrative powers in the Carlisle area should be extended, answered "No," and I think they were probably right. With regard to the areas outside the new towns, we hope that they will usually be green belt areas, and we have decided to rely on planning powers which are appropriate, at any rate to-day, to deal with the gap left by reason of the excision of the powers which we originally took. With regard to the tourist trade and the opening of night clubs in London until late hours, I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is here, because he has probably done more than any other man to bring about the improved position with regard to our tourist trade, which I would remind your Lordships is by now our most important industry—even more important than the cotton industry. It is true that the actual figures for cotton are slightly more, but if the cost of the cotton that we have to buy is deducted from the total figures, it will be seen that that industry is nothing like so great as the tourist industry. Its future is of vital importance, and it is imperative that we should do everything we can to develop it. We cannot afford to be fanciful about it: we have to do it in order to live.
  There are two important aspects about the tourist trade that I would mention. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will support me here, because I had the honour to be associated with him on the Travel Association. First, foreigners like and admire immensely our very old country inns. They go to them and they listen to their history. They love being in those rather odd places. Those inns are not touched by this Bill, and I am glad that
  1320
  they are not. I hope we shall induce foreigners to come here to see the country and stay in these inns. Secondly, there is the province of London. Be it remembered that, from the tourist point of view, London is not England, but it is a very important part of England. Many tourists come to the country and not to London. So far as London is concerned, we must have facilities for visitors to go on dancing and drinking until late hours. Personally I want to go away from places like that long before a late hour. I want to be in bed. Late hours are no good to people of our age. However, there are some gay young things. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, when he was young, was a "gay young thing." Perhaps that is why he is now rather "down" on these things. But, from the point of view of the tourist trade, it would be unfortunate if, when these young people came to London, they found there was nothing for them to do except go to bed about eleven or twelve o'clock at night. For that reason, I personally took the view that it was most important that these facilities should be provided.
  Now a word about clubs. I am going to say very little about them. It has always been a topic which any wise politician avoids. It is the skeleton in the cupboard of my Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. I am of the opinion that if we had had the courage to cope with this situation a long time ago, the position would now be vastly different. I think there is a problem here which needs to be dealt with. I cannot believe that any Minister of State, in making up his mind whether or not to allow facilities for a club, would let his mind be influenced by consideration whether it is a Conservative, a Liberal or a Labour club. I concede at once that I do not think any member of the noble Lord's Party would do it; nor would any member of the Liberal Party; and I claim that no member of my Party would do it. In this country, we are above that sort of thing. What one has to do is to consider whether there are reasonable facilities for the supply of drink in that area, and to ensure that those facilities reach all people. I can assure the noble Lord that I am quite satisfied that the sort of political considerations which he has in mind will not be allowed to arise. As regards his story about the police going

  1321
  sixteen times into three clubs, if there was a good reason for it it is excellent that the police should have gone. If there was no reason for it, then no great harm was done. But to my knowledge there have been clubs which could have done with a little more police inspection than in fact they had. Whether or not it was so in the case of these clubs I do not know.
  The noble Earl asked me a question about the meaning of the expression "licensed premises." I can tell him quite categorically that of course the phrase "licensed premises" does not include a club. The fact that the words are used in the Catering and Wages Board Order, 1945, does not affect the construction of this Bill. Under Clause 2,
  "premises or a registered club when State management came into operation"
  will not be affected by the Bill, but the supply of liquor in new clubs will require the written authority of the Secretary of State. We think it is impossible properly to plan the facilities for the sale of drink unless that is so. The noble Earl asked a question which arose in view of the definition of "bar." I would say that, in view of the definition of "bar" in subsection (5) of Clause 30, the answer appears to be that this question will have to be decided on the facts of each particular case. However, that is a Committee point which we can discuss at that stage.
  So far as the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is concerned, about the provision in the Schedule which he thought was very wrong, it is in fact copied from the Third Schedule of the Licensing Act, 1921. But so much more tender are this Government towards the rights of the subject than were the Government then existing that, whereas that Government then said,
  "… all such persons shall … except in such cases and to such extent as the Board may otherwise order, be subject to the statutory provisions …"
  we have omitted those words. The result is that although the Home Secretary is not yet the person who has really to run the business he is subject to all these statutory duties. So I think that is satisfactory. For the rest, I am prepared to concede that this Bill is somewhat in the nature of an experiment. I think this is a very good subject with which to experiment. After all, those of your Lordships who love liberty will remember
  1322
  this. In one of these State-managed "pubs," if you do not like one brand of beer you will be able to get another. In that case, you will have exactly that freedom which your Lordships are always expressing your keen desire to have. I hope that, when your Lordships have reconsidered your objections to this Bill, I shall have the whole of the Conservative Party among my strongest and keenest supporters of this excellent measure.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
CIVIL DEFENCE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS, 1949
  CIVIL DEFENCE (CORPS) REGULATIONS, 1949
  Draft Regulations proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Civil Defence Act, 1948: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
CIVIL DEFENCE (GENERAL) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1949
  CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1949
  Draft Regulations proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Civil Defence Act, 1948: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.