Lords Sitting of 17 April 1951

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

  DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Dangerous Drugs Acts, 1920 to 1950, and Section 28 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

  UNITED NATIONS AND PEKIN GOVERNMENT
  2.36 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: 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 what power exists under the Charter of the United Nations to enable that body to recognise a Government as the Government of any country which is one of the United Nations and to with-draw its recognition when it ceases to be the effective Government of that country; and how many of the United Nations have for themselves recognised the Pekin Government as the Government of China.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, the United Nations does not confer upon, nor withdraw from, Governments of Member States recognition as such, and no specific provision for such action is made in the Charter. Those United Nations bodies which are competent to do so must, however, decide upon the credentials of delegates claiming to represent Member States and, where more than one delegation claims to represent
  302
  the same State, must settle this procedural question by vote. In casting their votes on this issue, representatives of Member States will, of course, be influenced by the fact that their Governments have recognised one or other of the Governments claiming to represent the State concerned. Seventeen members of the United Nations have recognised the Central People's Government as the Government of China.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, will His Majesty's Government consider whether it would be possible to obtain, as a matter of urgency, the opinion of the International Court on the question of Chinese representation on the Security Council? Is the Minister aware that some of us believe that the Government which has its seat in Pekin is legally a member of the Security Council? Does he not, therefore, feel it desirable that the point should be clarified and, as it is rather a question of law and not of politics, does he not think that an advisory opinion of the Court would be of great value?
  LORD HENDERSON: With regard to the supplementary questions, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in another place on March 21, we consider that it is international law which defines the conditions under which a Government should be recognised. We believe that broadly the same principles govern the question of the representation of a Member State in the United Nations. It may well be, as the noble Earl has suggested, that an opinion of the International Court would be helpful in laying down the principles upon which such questions should be settled. Many Governments of Member States of the United Nations do not, however, agree with our views on recognition and on representation, and are of the opinion that the question is primarily a political one. As the noble Earl knows, it is necessary, in order to obtain an advisory opinion from the Court, for a resolution requesting it to be adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly. In present circumstances, it is hardly likely that such a resolution would command a majority in either of those bodies.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Would it be right to assume that it would be well within the competence of the General Assembly of the United Nations, if they so chose, to give an opinion on this point?
  LORD HENDERSON: The position is as I have already stated in my first answer—that it is for the Credentials Committee and all the competent bodies to take a decision. The General Assembly is one of the competent bodies.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the Government agree that the exclusion of the Chinese Government from the Security Council is prolonging the war in Korea?

  DELEGATION FROM CHINA
  2.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: 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 on what grounds a visa has been refused to the leader of an unofficial Chinese delegation now in Prague hoping for admission to this country; and whether steps could be taken to invite a representative body of Chinese to visit this country in order to promote understanding between the British and Chinese peoples.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, applications were received for visas to enable four Chinese delegates and one interpreter to attend a meeting organised by the Britain-China Friendship Association on April 8. The grant of visas to three of the delegates and the interpreter was authorised, but it was not considered to be in the public interest for Mr. Lee Yi-Mang, the leader of the delegation, to come to this country for this purpose. As regards the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government would at all times welcome the free exchange of news and views between this country and China and, similarly, a visit to this country by a representative body of Chinese. It is, however, doubtful whether, pending the establishment of diplomatic relations, the Chinese Government would authorise the acceptance by
  304
  such a representative body of an official invitation to visit the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to take steps to extend any such invitation.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is there any evidence that the Chinese Government are opposed to the visit of this particular delegation to this country?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as I know, there is no opposition to the visit of this particular delegation, with which I have previously dealt. But with regard to another delegation, a wider delegation such as is contemplated, the opinion we have here is that probably the Chinese Government would not be willing to authorise acceptance of an invitation.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What importance can be attached to the offer to receive a delegation if the leader of such a delegation is to be excluded without any reason given?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We must consider in each case the credentials of the various peoples who are coming, and if, as we think, we have good reasons for declining to allow anybody to come, it is questionable whether it is wise to discuss it in public. I will tell the noble Lord privately what our reasons are, but I think he will agree with me, if he agrees that there must be a discretion, that it is not always right to disclose in public the reasons which have led us to exercise our discretion in a particular way.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  2.44 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords. I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it will be for the convenience of the House if I do so with brevity, leaving it to other noble Lords, and more particularly the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to raise any special points in which they are interested. Then, with the leave of the House, I will venture to reply to the points raised. Before I move the Bill formally I should like in a few words to call attention to two clauses—I refer to Clauses 5 and 6. I

  305
  call attention to those clauses because they redeem pledges which I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, during the Committee stage of last year's Bill. I am sorry the noble Viscount is not with us, but, wherever he may be, I am sure that it will be good news to him to learn that these pledges are being carried out.
  Clause 5 relates to the disposal of soldiers and airmen of unsound mind who have homes in Northern Ireland. I have no reason to suppose that many gentlemen fall into this category. At different times I have been accused quite unfairly, of criticising Northern Ireland, but never have I suggested that there was any undue proportion of lunatics in that part of the world, and I feel that this clause has a very small reference indeed. Nevertheless, I would just point out that we have now established, with an amendment on the lines Lord Bridgeman wanted, that no further legislation in the Northern Ireland Parliament will be required. The present clause authorises the Army and Air Force Councils to direct by Order that the soldier or airman concerned shall be received into a particular hospital, instead of applying for his reception. It is just the difference between direction by order and application. I am sure your Lordships agree that we should carry out the promise we gave, and would wish me to express our gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for assisting us.
  Clause 6, I think, is of much wider interest. This, again, fulfils an understanding reached last year. Under the present law a soldier who has re-engaged to complete twenty-two years' service has to wait until his last year of service before he can apply to serve beyond twenty-two years. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, suggested last year that the appropriate time for giving notice of such an intention should be any time after the completion of fifteen years' service, and this in fact is the minimum period prescribed by this clause. This minimum period has been chosen because it is not considered that it will ever be possible to foresee the requirements of the Army sufficiently far ahead to enable applications for continuance to be entertained before the completion of fifteen years' service. I should say just this—it does not appear in the clause—that in the present circumstances of the Army, with the many uncertainties hanging over us,
  306
  it is doubtful whether it will be possible to entertain applications for continuance before the completion of eighteen years' service and, at the outset, this will be the period prescribed by regulations. But if, after experience, we find it possible to entertain applications at an earlier stage, then the figure of fifteen years is available in the Act. We hope that these arrangements will help the "career" soldier to plan further ahead for his future, and that thereby more men of value to the Service will be encouraged to stay on than is at present the case. With those few words, and awaiting the comments, suggestions and questions of your Lordships, and more particularly of the noble Marquess, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Pakenham.)
  2.48 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, your Lordships will, I have no doubt, agree that this is a practical and convenient method of dealing with a Bill of this kind, which is largely concerned with the annual reenactment of long-established provisions. The noble Lord was good enough to consult me in advance, and I readily agreed with his suggestion, it being open to myself and to other noble Lords who wish to do so in the course of the discussion to submit queries to which we believe he will reply at the end of the debate. I propose to make no comment upon what may be called the recurring decimals contained in this Bill—these clauses which reappear from year to year with unfailing regularity. There are proposed, however, certain amendments of a more or less minor character which I think raise a few queries. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord for the two amendments to which he has already called attention. I do not propose to pause to discuss the position of military lunatics in the North of Ireland, but the amendment to Clause 6, as I think the noble Lord said, is of much wider significance and is a valuable concession. It is important that a man who is looking forward to a long career in the Service should be able to make up his mind at the earliest moment as to the lines on which it is to develop. It is also important from the regiment's point of view that they shall know how many of

  307
  their men are likely to be taking advantage of the opportunity to extend their service. The long-service soldier is so stable an element in many units that anything which can be done to increase the proportion of such men is to the general advantage.
  There are two clauses to which I should like to draw attention, in order to raise questions upon them; and there is also one somewhat surprising omission. The first clause to which I wish to draw attention is Clause 3, which deals with the somewhat peculiar constitutional status of the Federation of Malaya and seeks to make the terms of the Army and Air Force Acts applicable, as I understand it, to forces locally raised. Unhappily, warfare on a considerable scale has been proceeding in Malaya for some years, and considerable forces are already engaged. I thought that those forces had for some time past included forces raised actually on the spot. If that be so, I am a little puzzled to know why it is only now discovered that this particular provision is necessary in order to ensure the proper application of the Acts to those forces. The noble Lord no doubt has the answer. but it is not one which suggests itself offhand.
  The second clause to which I desire to draw attention is Clause 7, which substitutes for the words "regimental" and "regimental or garrison" the word "ser-vice" in a variety of contexts. I may be —and I hope that I am—unjustifiably suspicious as to the underlying purpose of that clause, or if not as to part of the purpose at least as to one of the possible con-sequences of it. There is a school of thought, which has ardent supporters, in favour of establishing a corps of infantry, which, it is claimed, would achieve far greater elasticity, even at the price of eliminating the traditional and territorial affiliations of existing regiments. I am afraid that I belong to the school of, possibly, not very deeply instructed thought which would not eagerly welcome such a change, and I should be glad if the noble Lord could assure us that that is not the purpose at which this clause is aimed, and that if we pass the clause we shall not be smoothing the path for the introduction at a later stage of this particular change.
  308
  The omission to which I referred as being somewhat startling concerns a subject on which I have rather frequently addressed your Lordships' House lately —that of courts-martial. Your Lordships may recall that the Lewis Report on the administration of justice in the Army and Air Force was presented three years ago —in April, 1948. That Report contained a number of recommendations which, if approved, would require statutory authority in order to give them effect. In the White Paper issued at the beginning of this year, in which the Government incorporated those recommendations which they accepted, a number of these recommendations appeared. Surely it was not unreasonable for us to expect that in the next Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill to be presented to Parliament after the acceptance of those recommendations steps would be taken to implement them, by giving them legal sanction. Yet not a single one of them appears in this Bill. I think I am justified in expressing some surprise at the omission. If these recommendations are accepted by the Government, presumably it is on the basis that they are considered beneficial. If they are beneficial, steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to put them into operation. It can scarcely be argued that the Government have not had time to prepare the necessary draft provisions for inclusion in the Bill, for. as I have already said, they have had three years during which to meditate upon the necessary legislative drafting required. It seems to me that, since we shall presumably have to wait another full year before these recommendations can be brought into effect, all those concerned have been somewhat un-fairly treated. I should like to know from the noble Lord, first, why recommendations are not carried out in this Bill, and, secondly, whether it is proposed to introduce some intermediate legislation before the next Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is presented, in order to give these provisions the necessary legal effect. Those are the only points I desire to raise on this Bill. I shall, as always, await with interest the replies of the noble Lord.
  2.58 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Marquess has spoken to us with all his customary charm and acuteness. If I were not equipped with what seems to me to be an effective reply, I should wonder

  309
  whether an effective reply would be forthcoming. Happily, I am able to assure him that it will be made. May I take first what is perhaps the largest question which he raised?—I refer to the question of courts-martial procedure. He will not expect me—even if I had the competence—to try to cover once more the ground which he and other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, only recently covered with such authority in this House. I will just explain the situation in this very brief way. The White Paper to which the noble Marquess has referred shows which conclusions of these Committees (that is, the Lewis Committee and also the Pilcher Committee—though the Pilcher Committee is not, perhaps, under discussion to-day, since it refers to the Navy) the Government are prepared to accept, which are still under consideration and which cannot be accepted. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said in the recent debate, among the recommendations of the Lewis Committee which have been accepted (these are the only ones which the noble Marquess has in mind, I presume, for the purposes of this afternoon's discussion) there is little of importance requiring legislation which is not covered by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill which is at present on its way through another place. The noble Marquess asked whether any other Bill was envisaged. There is that Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I know that, but that Bill does not cover everything.
  LORD PAKENHAM: It does not cover everything, but I think it is right to mention it for the benefit of the House. As the noble Viscount said, there is little of importance which requires legislation and which is not covered by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill, or which cannot be anticipated by administrative action, as at least one of the recommendations has been. At the same time, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, informed the House that our intention is to sweep up any outstanding points in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, 1952, by which time final decisions will have been reached on the recommendations still under consideration. I concede to the noble Marquess that it would have been possible to give effect in the present Bill to the recommendations which have already been
  310
  accepted, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has said, they are of minor importance. I have three or four of them before me, and although, of course, they are desirable, they cannot be said to be really vital or urgent. One of these accepted recommendations has already been put into operation toy administrative action, as I have said, and it therefore seemed best to leave over the whole of the residual matter until next year, when the final decisions will have been reached on the outstanding recommendations, some of which are of considerably greater importance.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord says that one of these recommendations, stated in the White Paper to require legal sanction, has now been implemented by administrative action— or did I misunderstand the noble Lord?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid that I answered the question in my own terms, and did not follow the terms of the original question. The noble Marquess phrased it in that way, but my answer was not in quite the same terms. I am taking only the recommendations of the Lewis Committee which have been accepted, not restricting myself to those requiring legal sanction. This particular recommendation—the recommendation that the eight-day report should be rendered whenever the accused is in close arrest, whether he is on active service or not—will eventually require legislative sanction. The recommendations which have been accepted are of three kinds: they can be dealt with by the Bill now passing through another place; they can be put into operation, as they have in this case, by administrative action; or they are very small and can more tidily be dealt with next year, when the remaining recommendations to be put into operation will be included in the 1952 Bill. In placing recommendations under three headings, I feel that we have followed the neatest course.
  May I deal now with two other main points raised by the noble Marquess? I can assure him that no attack what-ever is intended on the regimental spirit by substituting the word "service" for the words "regimental" and "regimental or garrison" in Clause 7. All my colleagues, and certainly my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, are determined that that spirit

  311
  shall be enhanced in every possible way. The change in terminology is required only in the limited context of the Army Act, and in other cases the term "regimental" will continue to be used, with all its present wealth of meaning. The field covered by this change is that in which the words are used for strictly legal purposes, in qualification of "institution, necessaries, books, band, mess or property." The term "service" which is introduced comprehends, by the definition given to it in this clause, both "regimental" and "garrison" and makes it clear in simple language that what is referred to is any property belonging to, or connected with, the Army or any part of the Army.
  The noble Marquess may be aware of the reason for this change, but some of your Lordships may not. The Amendment is necessary because of a good deal of difficulty which has arisen about the theft or damage of Army property. Your Lordships would agree that any such offence should not go unpunished because of a doubt of interpretation whether such property is legally "regimental" or "garrison" property. At least on one occasion the offender escaped punishment because the charge was wrongly drafted. In order to make sure that that kind of thing cannot happen, we are using the broad word "service," so that no military criminal can escape through some verbal quibble. That is the simple reason. I assure the noble Marquess that there is nothing sinister in this, no arrière pensée. no intention of weakening the regimental spirit, to which we all subscribe as warmly as he does.
  Finally, I should like to say a word in reply to the noble Marquess's reference to Malaya. The purpose of Clause 3 is to enable the Federation of Malaya to apply the Army and Air Force Acts to forces which may be raised under local legislation. It does not affect men enlisted locally in Malaya for the British Forces. but only Malayan forces raised under local enactments. I do not know whether the noble Marquess was clear on that point. The Army and Air Force Acts already contain sections giving power to a Colony to apply these Acts, with modifications as desired, to any forces raised within the Colony. But Malaya is not a Colony as defined in the relevant legislation; it is a Federation of nine British
  312
  Protected States, and the British Settlements of Penang and Malacca. The application of these Acts to forces raised by the Federation is not at present provided for. The reason why this particular extension is now necessary (and I think this was the main point in the mind of the noble Marquess, who asked why this had suddenly become necessary) is that for the first time the Federation intend to raise volunteer forces under local legislation—for example, the Malayan Volunteer Force, a military force being raised soon—to which they would like the Army and the Air Force Acts to apply. That is the reason for the clause. It has never previously been needed, but the Federation would now like it, so that they may apply the Acts to their new volunteer forces. That is an explanation which I feel will probably satisfy the noble Marquess. Unless there are further points, I will thank the noble Marquess for the tone of his comments and ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (DEFENCE PURPOSES) BILL
  3.14 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am almost ashamed to think of how much of your Lordships' time I have taken in discussing Bills of this sort, and of the comments that I have made on the distinction between powers and purposes, and the like, extending over very many years. Your Lordships will remember that in the original Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, His Majesty —which, of course, means his Ministers —was given power to make such Regulations
  "as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm"
  and certain other purposes. Therefore, no court has jurisdiction to question them, so long as the Minister can honestly say that a particular Regulation is, in his opinion, necessary for one of these purposes. Therefore, it is necessary always to distinguish between the powers comprised in the Regulation and the purposes for which Regulations can be made.

  313
  The emphasis in 1939 was on the prosecution of the war that was then raging, and the defence of the realm. But in 1945 the war was over and, by common consent, we had to continue certain of the existing Regulations—there was no power to make new Regulations—and obviously the purpose was a different one. In the Act of 1945 the purpose may be summarised as follows: to secure a sufficiency of essential supplies and services to the wellbeing of the community; to facilitate demobilisation; to facilitate readjustment of industry; and to assist the relief of suffering. Those purposes indicate the sort of problems that confronted us after the war.
  Then came the year 1947, when the scene had changed again, when we were battling with the dollar problem and trying to close the dollar gap. We then passed the Act of 1947, again altering the purposes. There, they were for promoting the productivity of industry; the fostering and directing of exports; and generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community were used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community. That Act asked for very wide powers indeed. Speaking for myself, I feel no doubt that had one of the Ministers come to me—because this matter is not challengeable in the courts—with regard to any Regulation which we had passed, and said: "Do you think I am justified in promulgating this Regulation?", I should have said: "Well, if you think that this is making use of the resources of the community in a manner best calculated to serve their interests, I think you are perfectly entitled to do it." But, of course, I concede that, just because these powers are not challengeable in the courts, the Minister, in making them, ought to be especially careful to see that he is exercising his powers in a way which accords not only with the letter but with the spirit of the Act.
  Now, unfortunately and unhappily, we are again in a new position. What we have to do now is to see that this country is armed as quickly as may be to put her in the position to resist aggression, in the hope and belief that by so doing we stand the best chance of preventing a war. We must reorientate our point of view. Therefore I feel it right, lest we should be
  314
  accused of using powers which are wearing a little thin, that we should restate with emphasis the purposes which the Minister may now have in mind, not in promulgating new Regulations but in using the existing Regulations. That, my Lords, is this Bill. The Bill makes it plain that those Defence Regulations which are continued in force by the Act of 1945 can be used for purposes which are set out in Clause 1. Let me here state that we had a good deal of controversy at the time about whether we should have our five years. We got our five years, but the five years ran out, and your Lordships will remember that we recently had from this House an Address asking that the powers should be renewed. They are now on a yearly basis, and they come to an end on December 10 of this year. Therefore I am not to-day asking for anything at all after December 10 of this year, when it will be necessary, if these powers are to be used, to pass a new Act or to present a new Address.
  This Bill illlustrates the distinction between purposes and powers, because the second part of the Bill confers a temporary power to stop up highways passing through or near defence establishments where the stopping-up is urgently necessary for defence purposes. That power is not one of the powers that exist to-day. Whereas the first part of the Bill deals with the purposes to which the existing powers may be put, the second part of the Bill deals with new powers. From a strictly legal point of view, the Bill is not required for the great majority of the measures which will have to be taken under emergency powers for defence purposes. The Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947 are drawn in wide terms and give very wide powers, though there are one or two matters with which we might have to deal and which I shall indicate shortly, where I think some clarification is desirable.
  When in October last your Lordships agreed to present Addresses seeking the renewal of emergency powers for a further period of twelve months, I made it clear that among the reasons which made it necessary to continue emergency powers in force for a further period were the needs of the rearmament programme. I referred to the fact that not only would land already requisitioned have in many cases to be retained, but that further land

  315
  might have to be requisitioned in order that new airfields could be built and new training areas provided. I made that statement on the basis, which I do not think can seriously be challenged, that the needs of defence could be met within the framework of the existing powers. Therefore, our reason for bringing this Bill before Parliament is constitutional rather than legal.
  Since the renewal of emergency powers last autumn for a further period of one year, the world situation has brought defence needs more and more to the front, and a stage has been reached at which we feel it is desirable to secure Parliamentary sanction for the use of emergency powers for defence purposes. Defence and rearmament were not among the main purposes contemplated by Parliament when the Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947 were passed, even though we used language wide enough to include defence. Indeed, in 1945 defence purposes, under that specific description, were dropped when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts were allowed to expire. The emphasis in 1945 was on the transition from war to peace and the economic needs of the transitional period. Then in 1947, when more drastic controls had to be imposed for the purpose of increasing exports and reducing imports, we passed the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947. Now, when once again it is necessary to bend our energies to the task of rearmament, it may be necessary to reimpose economic controls which have lapsed, and the supplies and services departments may have to requisition land and buildings.
  We could do nearly everything under the existing provisions of the Supplies and Services Acts, but, as I have indicated, we take the view that we ought to obtain express Parliamentary approval for what we are about to do, and not depend on Acts of Parliament which were primarily directed at a different state of affairs. Your Lordships may say—and I should agree—that it is indeed unfortunate that these emergency powers should have to be used, first, for the demobilisation of the Armed Forces after the end of the last war, and for all the economic problems of the period of demobilisation, then for the economic rehabilitation of the country and now,
  316
  finally, for the building up again of adequate defences to face a threatening world situation. All these different purposes, for which these emergency powers have had to be used, are strange bedfellows when you look at them as they appear in successive Acts and Bills, but this merely epitomises the history of the last six years when the hopes which we formed in the hour of victory in 1945 have been dashed or, at any rate, postponed for a time.
  The matters in respect of which we felt it desirable on legal grounds to seek the fresh powers contained in the Bill are as follows. One concerns the possible requisitioning of ships in connection with United Nations operations. The language of the 1945 and 1947 Acts is wide enough, in my view, to cover the general building up of the defence services, on the ground that such services are essential to the wellbeing of the community, or that the use of the resources of the community is calculated to serve the interests of the community. But these phrases are not very apt when it comes to the use of requisitioning powers for a specific military operation under the aegis of the United Nations in a remote part of the world. Such a use of the powers is hardly part of the general process of controlling the use of our economic resources with which the Acts are concerned. The necessity for these powers has not arisen as yet. Let me make that quite plain. The Minister of Transport has so far been able to charter all the ships he wants for Korea, but circumstances might arise in the future in which requisitioning powers would have to be used if the necessary shipping space were to be secured or, at any rate, secured at rates which were not wholly exorbitant. We think it a matter of ordinary prudence to be prepared to deal with this situation if it should arise in the future.
  The other strictly legal difficulty with which we are faced concerns the use of emergency powers to prevent Communist countries receiving supplies which might be of great value to them. If we need the supplies urgently ourselves the existing powers would suffice, but if the primary motive is to deny the supplies to other countries rather than to secure them for ourselves, it hardly falls within the powers conferred by the existing Act.

  317
  Your Lordships will see that paragraph (b) of Clause 1 of the Bill expressly covers this point. I do not think I need give a detailed description of the emergency powers to which the Bill relates. We covered the ground fairly thoroughly in the debate in October last on the renewal of powers for a further year. I should, however, like to refer briefly to two matters—labour controls and requisitioning powers.
  The present Bill would enlarge the field within which labour controls could be employed. As I explained in the debate on the Address on November 2 last, the Government have never contemplated that any permanent legislation continuing in existence the essential economic controls should include any provision for the direction of labour. In regard to the present temporary powers, while Defence Regulation 58A will be kept in existence and may be used for certain limited purposes, no further use will be made of the powers given by that Regulation, either to direct men and women to perform specified services or to require them to remain in specified employment, unless an immediate attack on this country is anticipated. If, for any other reason, such powers are deemed to be necessary, legislation will be introduced to deal with it.
  Now a word or two about the use of requisitioning powers. There will have to be some requisitioning of land and buildings for the Service Departments and for defence production, and possibly also for the accommodation and storage requirements of the Service and civil Departments. We shall, therefore, have to make more use than recently of certain Defence Regulations—namely, Regulations 50, 51 and 85. The Service Departments will also have to make some use of Defence Regulation 52 to obtain training rights over new areas. Where the requisitioning of land is contemplated, the civilian Departments concerned are consulted. These consultations will continue, though we have been endeavouring to work out a procedure which will ensure that the machinery acts sufficiently speedily in urgent cases.
  Before I leave the main provision of the Bill, there is one other matter which I should mention. The provision in Clause 1 (1) that Supplies and Services Acts are to be deemed always to have included the new purposes is not intended to render
  318
  legal past acts of the Government. The Government have not exceeded their powers. The words are required because the Bill itself, by expressly making defence one of the purposes for which Defence Regulations can be used, inevitably throws some doubt on the validity of the use of Defence Regulations in the past for this purpose. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 reproduces a provision which was inserted in the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947. I frankly doubt whether newspapers need this statutory protection, but as it was included in the Act of 1947 we thought it well to reproduce it here lest anybody should argue that it had been impliedly repealed.
  So much for the purposes. Now I come to the powers. In Clause 2 we are asking for the extension of our powers. We really have tried to dispense with Defence Regulations when they no longer appeared to be required; and, of course, a Regulation once revoked cannot be revived. The Sup-plies and Services Acts all relate to an existing body of Defence Regulations which is pruned from time to time and gradually reduced in volume and which cannot be increased. There are no powers for anything corresponding to government by decree. We dispensed with the powers about roads. There was a wartime Regulation—Regulation 16—which empowered a competent authority to close roads for defence establishments and factories. It was a necessary part of the machinery for the rapid extension of defence facilities, especially airfields. After the war it was thought and hoped that the Regulation would no longer be required for the fresh closing of roads near defence establishments, and it was narrowed to deal only with the closing of roads in connection with opencast coal working and the construction of generating stations. We now find ourselves in a situation in which it is obviously necessary to extend airfields and enlarge other defence establishments. Requisitioning powers in respect of land and buildings, and the powers to do work on land, are still in full force, but there is no emerfency procedure for the closing of roads. Under the ordinary peace-time procedure for stopping up highways under the High-ways Act, 1835, or the Town and Country' Planning Act, 1947, there may be delay in the extension of airfields for six or even nine months. Already there have been cases in which the extension of

  319
  runways at airfields required urgently have been delayed because of the necessity for lengthy procedure for stopping up a road passing over or near the proposed extension.
  As there is no procedure for reviving part of a Defence Regulation which has expired, it is necessary to obtain statutory authority for an expeditious procedure for the closing of a highway. We have, reluctantly, to recognise the need for bringing back this power in time of peace. We have done what we can to make the clause as acceptable as possible to all interests concerned. As I have said, the power is temporary in character, and will come to an end when the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, expires—which will be on December 10 next, unless Parliament decides to extend these powers further. It falls on the Minister of Trans-port and not on the Service Departments to exercise this power, and the Minister can exercise the power only if he is satisfied that the closing of a road is urgently required for defence reasons. He has to give twenty-one days notice before making the order. This will enable local authorities and other interested parties to notify the Minister of any objection to his proposal, but will not, of course, give time for a formal inquiry. The second part of the clause provides a procedure for the permanent stopping up of a highway which has been temporarily closed, and for the provision of a permanent alternative route if that is necessary. There is no corresponding provision in Defence Regulation 16. The procedure is that provided by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and gives protection for the interests of the public and of statutory undertakers. Where it is clear that the stopping up of a highway will be permanent, the Minister of Trans-port will apply the Town and Country Planning Act code procedure, and this will enable the Minister to provide permanent alternative facilities, including an alternative highway constructed at the expense of the Service or other Department responsible for the work necessitating the closure of the road. We have looked carefully into the question of the powers which we shall require for the defence programme. We believe that with the enlargement of the purposes for which the Defence Regulation might be required —these are set out in Clause 1 of this
  320
  Bill—together with the power to close roads for defence establishments, which is contained in Clause 2, we shall have all the power we need to deal with the tasks which lie ahead. We will endeavour to implement the defence programme whilst at the same time striving to carry on the work of economic recovery in which we have been engaged since the end of the war. No one on either side of the House unduly likes this type of legislation, but I think your Lordships will agree with me that, unhappily, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves it is necessary that we should introduce this Bill. I confidently rely upon your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  3.35 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I come to the substance of this Bill, I should like to say a word of thanks to those responsible for what I believe, in technical circles, is called the format of the Bill which has been put forward for our consideration. I am glad to see that on this occasion we have been provided with an explanatory memorandum. As your Lordships—or, at any rate, those of your Lordships who have been in another place—know, although that is the universal practice there it has never up to now, I think, been generally accepted (I do not know why) in this House. It is obviously for the convenience of us all, and I hope that what has now started will become a general and enduring practice.
  To turn to the Bill itself, I do not propose to speak at any great length. On the face of it, and after what the Lord Chancellor has said, it seems to be comparatively innocuous. As I understand it, one of the main purposes of this measure is to get the Government out of possible embarrassments caused by their own past actions. They hope they have not been guilty of any moral turpitude, or even illegality, in their interpretation of existing legislation. But they are not quite certain; they are not absolutely comfortable. The last thing they wish, as the Lord Chancellor made clear, is that their character and rectitude in this matter should be in the slightest degree

  321
  impugned. They want to be ultra-respectable, and so they introduce a new Bill for the purpose of clarifying the position and giving them powers which they hope they already possess.
  If they will forgive my saying so, I cannot help feeling that, from a purely constitutional point of view, Bills of this kind, though they may sometimes be necessary, are not a very happy device, because they tend to launch Parliament on a rather slippery slope. If the Government are uncertain whether or not they have certain powers, it may well be that by the new legislation they are in fact extending those powers. Indeed, I gather from what the Lord Chancellor said this afternoon that that is true even of this Bill, though only to a very limited degree and for a special purpose. Moreover, I should have thought that it was in any case a little alarming that the Government who introduced the original legislation are themselves not quite certain what powers they have under that legislation. I should have thought that that situation showed clearly the potential dangers which are inherent in vast extensions of the powers of the Executive to govern by Regulation, which has been such a feature of our national administration since the war.
  I am sure that noble Lords opposite will understand if we on this side of the House feel bound to view such measures with a very wary eye, especially where controls are concerned. I do not for one moment say that it is possible at the present time to do without any controls. As I understand, controls are like tariffs: sometimes they are necessary, sometimes they are not. But most of us who sit in this House—and I should have thought that this applied to noble Lords opposite as much as to us on this side—wish to lay down certain general lines for our own guidance in dealing with such administrative devices as controls. First, they should be as few as are necessary for the welfare of the community; and, secondly, they must be under the constant review of Parliament. Parliament should never give a blank cheque to the Executive which might tend to take such matters permanently out of the purview of the representatives of the people. That, as I see it, is the essence of Parliamentary democracy. I am sure it is the principle which will always actuate us in this
  322
  House and, I hope, in another place also. To put it in one sentence, the control of Parliament must always override all other controls.
  Having said that, I would add that, fortunately, in the present case I do not think such fundamental issues arise. For one thing, as the Lord Chancellor has explained to us this afternoon, the duration of this Bill is not unlimited. It is limited, as I understand it, to the period of the main Act, the Supplies and Services Act, 1947, of which, in effect, this is only an interpretation; and that period, I understand from what the Lord Chancellor said to us this afternoon, comes to an end in December of this year. When, if ever, the Government decide to continue or to perpetuate that main Act, no doubt very important issues will arise which will need the most earnest consideration of us all. Meantime, however, I do not think we need disturb ourselves too much over the measure which we are discussing this afternoon. Moreover, the limited purpose to which this measure is directed is one, I should have thought, which must be viewed with sympathy by us all. It aims at easing the task of the Government in making the necessary provisions for national defence, and after all that is common ground among us all. Clearly, in the situation in which this country is placed to-day, urgent measures of this kind must not be held up.
  I was rather amused to see that when the present Foreign Secretary, as Lord President of the Council, introduced this Bill in another place, he said, or indicated with some horror, that without it the Government might have to go through all the delays and complications of the Town and Country Planning Act, which he clearly thought would be intolerable. We who are private citizens have to go almost daily through all the inconveniences and frustrations which are involved in that measure, and we can only sympathise with the Government in this respect. I hope that the relaxation which they are now claiming for themselves will soon be extended to private citizens, and I hope, too, that Government Departments, and especially the Service Departments, will use with moderation the powers which we are now giving to them. If I may be forgiven for saying so, they were apt to be both autocratic and even arrogant in their dealings with private

  323
  citizens during the days of the war. I hope, in particular, that some instructions will be given to the officers who will be in charge of administering these Regulations that, where they are taking over land or property of either owners or occupiers, they shall do those people the courtesy of telling them beforehand what they are going to do.
  The other day I had to take up with a Service Department the case of a man who found out that his land was being taken only because of the fact that a neighbouring labourer was engaged upon the construction of a new camp. Before that moment he had been told nothing about where this camp was being put, or even that there was going to be a camp at all. I think that is an intolerable intrusion upon the liberty of the individual. If land or buildings are necessary for the defence of the country, of course they must be made available; but courtesy should be observed in these matters. Having said that, I think it is common ground among us all that unnecessary delays in perfecting our defences should be avoided, and I am sure that we can all face this special limited purpose with some slight elasticity in the application of our principles.
  The question of whether we may find it necessary to suggest any Amendments to this Bill is, of course, one which we shall have to consider before the Committee stage. As your Lordships know, an Amendment was introduced in another place to make certain that this measure would not legalise the direction of labour, which I think would be regarded in all parts of the House as an intolerable intrusion upon civic liberty in peace time. But, as the Lord Chancellor has told us this afternoon, the Minister of Labour in another place made it perfectly clear that that is not the Government's intention. As I understood what was said —I may not have the words quite correctly, but I should like to repeat them— it is not the intention of the Government to make further use of powers given under Regulation 58A, either to direct men or women to perform specified services, or to require them to remain in specified employment, unless and until an immediate attack on the country is anticipated. I gather that the Minister of Labour added (and I am sure it would
  324
  be repeated by the noble and learned Viscount) that if for any other reason such powers were deemed to be necessary, legislation to obtain them would be introduced. In view of that categorical pledge, I hardly think it will be necessary for us in this House to press the matter further, though I have no doubt that the tabling of that Amendment by the Opposition in another place performed a valuable function in enabling the Government to make so clear a statement on the question.
  Then, my Lords, there is the retrospective aspect of the Bill, upon which I do not think the Lord Chancellor said very much. I suppose that we all hate retrospective legislation, and our instinct is to oppose it whenever it appears. The question in this case appears to me to be whether the Government are taking new powers retrospectively, or merely making certain that they have the old powers which they thought they had. I think the noble and learned Viscount has already made the position fairly clear. He holds that they are not claiming new powers; that they intend only to act under existing Regulations, and wish merely to interpret the purposes to which those Regulations can be moved. I should have thought that was all right. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will allow us to consider the matter a little further before the Committee stage but, broadly speaking, I am certain that we shall all agree that this particular Bill is not open to great objection. Its main purpose of building up our national defences is one which we should all approve, and we on these Benches do not intend to oppose the Second Reading.
  3.47 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, briefly reply to the noble Marquess, I do not find myself in any opposition to what he has said. As has often been said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and I think it is the duty of all quarters of this House to scan these measures with great care to see that the Executive are not trying to get some new powers without disclosing them quite frankly to the House. Your Lordships know me well enough to know that if there were any such intention I should most certainly point it out to your Lordships. But there is no such intention

  325
  at all. Apart from Clause 2 about the stopping up of roads, which is a very small point, we are not asking for any new powers here. We simply make it plain that we are making use of the powers which we already possess for the purpose of what I may broadly call defence and building up our defences.
  The only retrospective element about it is this. I am frightened that if a Bill is introduced making it plain that in future these powers may be used for defence purposes, it may lead to the argument that before this had been done it was not legitimate to use them for defence purposes, and the mere fact that this Bill was passed might lead to this argument. I have no doubt in my own mind that every single power we have used is fully justified under the existing powers. The only case in which I feel the powers could be questioned is, as I have said before, if it were thought necessary to requisition tonnage for the Korean war. I think it is a little doubtful whether that could properly be done. Be it observed that the power is there, but I doubt whether the purpose for which it would be sought to exercise the power was one really contemplated. Therefore, I think we ought to come to Parliament and tell them that. The other purpose
  326
  about which I am a little doubtful is whether we should be entitled to prevent potential enemies from getting valuable goods which we ourselves do not require. There again, I think we ought to come to Parliament and make it quite plain that that is one of the purposes.
  I am only too glad that the noble Marquess should have ample opportunity for looking at this matter. If he wants to move any Amendment at a later stage of the Bill he is fully entitled to do so, and I will gladly assist, so far as I can, by explaining the very complicated nature of this Bill, which deals with a topic on which we have spent so much time in the past. As the noble Marquess has said, this is really an innocuous Bill, but I think it is right that we should come to the House to make it perfectly plain that we ask to be allowed to use our existing powers—and no more than our existing powers—for the new purposes which, unhappily, have emerged all too clearly. For that reason, I ask your Lordships to support this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before four o'clock.