Lords Sitting of 3 July 1951

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Coal Industry Bill and the Ministry of Materials Bill through their remaining stages.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
2.36 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Prohibition on use of stream for disposal of polluting matter, refuse, etc.
(8) Where an offence punishable under this section has been committed by a body corporate, any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.
In this subsection, the expression "director", in relation to any body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking being a body corporate whose affairs are managed by the members thereof, means a member of that body.
(9) Where a person is convicted of an offence by virtue of the last foregoing subsection as having at the time of its commission been a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of a body corporate within the

501
meaning of that subsection (or been purporting to act in any such capacity), and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was substantially a repetition or continuation of an earlier offence by the body corporate after it had been convicted of the earlier offence (whether under this Act or otherwise), he shall be liable to the same penalties as the body corporate under the proviso to subsection (6) of this section, including the imprisonment to which it would be liable if a natural person:
Provided that—
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL(LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"and for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection a local authority shall be deemed to cause or knowingly permit to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, which passes into the stream from any sewer or swage disposal works vested in them, in any case where either the local authority were hound to receive the matter into the sewer or sewage disposal works, or they consented to do so unconditionally, or they consented to do so subject to conditions and those conditions were observed.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge of anything into a sewer or sewage disposal works vested in a local authority, so that it passes into a stream, in any such case as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a clarifying Amendment. Its purpose is to remove any doubts that there might be about the responsibility of the local authority if conditions attaching to an agreement to receive matter into their sewers were not observed by the person discharging the effluent. This is simply a re-draft. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (8) to leave out all words from "section" down to the end of the first paragraph, and to insert
"which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to he proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage of this
502
Bill the Lord Chancellor made a speech in which he put before the House for their reflection some considerations which he thought ought to be fully and maturely weighed before we decided whether or not Clause 2 (8) of this Bill should be amended; and he asked that those who were considering the matter should consider his words as reported, because he wished us to form our judgment upon them and to inform him of the result of that further reflection. I was not myself able to be here on the Committee stage, but my noble friend Lord Swinton was, and he took charge of the matter. Of course, both he and I have considered very carefully what the Lord Chancellor then said. I admit at once that there were considerations then mentioned which should be carefully weighed. At the same time, I submit to the House and to the Lord Chancellor that, on the whole, the Amendment which we then moved and which is upon the Order Paper at this stage, is one which it would be proper to make.
If that Amendment is made, the result will be that as regards offences under this Bill it will rest upon the prosecution to prove their case. Subsection (8) would then read:
"Where an offence punishable under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
I submit, with great respect, that that is the right way to put it. This was the form which was adopted (I believe at my suggestion) in an earlier Act, the Sea Fish Industry Act; and I think the case for throwing the burden upon the prosecution is much greater in regard to the pollution of rivers than it was in the Sea Fish Industry Act. The pollution of a river may arise from a combination of causes. I suppose sometimes from a combination of chemicals. It is a most serious thing, and I am wholeheartedly in favour of the effort being made in this Bill to bring about an important and effective change in the law in order that our rivers may be purified and kept pure. But to throw the burden not only on the director but even on the secretary of a company, because the company itself has committed

503
the offence is, I think, to go too far, and is contrary to the usual tradition which we strive to maintain in this matter—namely, that before a man can be said to be guilty of an offence, the offence must be proved against him.
If I may say so, with great respect to the Lord Chancellor, having most carefully read the speech he made on the Committee stage, I think some of his observations might have been met in this way. He made much of the case of a private company which may have only one director, and in which, as he was trying to suggest, the action of the company must, in most cases, be regarded as practically identical with the action of the director. I see the force of that argument. But, as it stands, the Government's Bill does not apply only to private companies with but one director; it applies to all companies, public and private. It applies to the largest company with directors in different parts of the Kingdom, each of whom may have charge of a particular compartment in the company. Therefore, whatever might be said in favour of the Bill if it applied only to private companies, does not seem to be a very conclusive argument when the measure applies to all companies. public and private, of every sort and kind.
I think it right to observe that the Lord Chancellor went a little wide in the particular analogy he drew in regard to previous legislation. I notice that in Column 327 of Hansard dated June 26 last, he said:
"For a long time the law has been that if the company is guilty of such an offence, you can, if you are so minded—and, of course, you apply the rule with common sense—charge the director, and he has to show that he has not been guilty of any complicity."
If I may say so, that is a slip which we are all liable to make from time to time. There is no such provision in the factory law. The factory law does not in the least provide that because there has been a failure on the part of a company to fence machinery, a director is to be presumed to be guilty of that offence until he proves the contrary. Nor, I think, is there anything of that kind in the Mines Act. But there are cases undoubtedly which could be quoted, and the question is whether we should follow those analogies or whether, on the contrary, we should, in this instance, maintain the ordinary law.
504
I hope the Lord Chancellor will say that he will, on reflection, accept the view which, after considerable inquiry by my noble friend Lord Swinton, we find is the view that widely prevails in this House—that, in this instance, the Amendment we have put down is one which ought to be made.
As I cannot speak again on this matter, may I just observe that if the Lord Chancellor's view was that he was going to accept this first Amendment and then ask that we did not move the next Amendment (and I imagine we should be willing not to do so). I fancy it would be necessary slightly to vary the terms of the Amendment which I am now moving. The Lord Chancellor will see if he looks at subsection (9), which I imagine he wishes to stand in the Bill as it is, that that subsection not only applies to a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of a body corporate but goes on to say that it includes a person who has "been purporting to act in any such capacity." Our Amendment, as it appears in the Marshalled List, does not include those words which appear in brackets in subsection (9). Unless the Lord Chancellor can better advise me, I think that the Amendment which I am now moving should be moved in this form. It should be as it is on the Paper, but at the end of the fifth line I think there should be included these words which are not there at present: "or any person purporting to act in any such capacity. "This is purely for the purpose of making our Amendment chime with subsection (9). If the Lord Chancellor thinks it is right to do so I will move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 4. line 1, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 10, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Simon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, in reference to the last point, I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that I might be allowed to look at this matter. There is no reason why we should not have an Amendment on Third Reading, so long as it is on the Marshalled List now before us. I should like to ask the draftsman whether or not the Amendment which has been suggested by the noble and learned Viscount should be accepted. On the last occasion, I set out what I thought to be

505
the relevant facts which your Lordships should consider, and I spoke about what I believed to be relevant law. I also indicated that if, on reflection, notwithstanding what I said, your Lordships wanted this Amendment, I would accept it. I put the responsibility fairly and squarely or your Lordships, and though my law may be bad, my morals are unimpeachable.
Your Lordships have thought fit to place this Amendment on the Marshalled List, and I shall therefore advise the House to accept it. But I should like, while doing that, to tell your Lordships what I think about it, and, at the same time, to make an apology for having misled your Lordships as I did on the last occasion through the old error of not having verified my references. It is not the fact that the Factories Act or the Mines Act contains a clause on these lines. No doubt the reason they were considered analogous, and why I too readily assumeded that they contained this clause, is this. Under the Factories Act—to take that first—the owner or occupier of a factory is absolutely liable for any breach of regulation which takes place in that factory. It is nothing to the point for him to say of somebody else: "I told him to do this," or "I told him not to do that," or "I had a good staff and I trusted them; it was not my fault at all." That is no defence. The only "get-out" is a "get-out" similar to that which we put into the Fireworks Act the other day. This is that, if a person charged—the owner or occupier of a factory—can show affirmatively that it was not his fault but the fault of "A. B.," whom he names, and can bring it home to "A. B.," then only can he get off. If "A. B." has been guilty of causing an explosion that results from the breach of duty "A. B." cannot get off at all. It is an absolute liability, with an escape clause which operates only if the owner or occupier can show that someone else is to blame and can bring that someone else before the court and get him fined.
In the Mines Act, I think I am right in saying—I am not going to descant about this not having verified my references again—there is, I think, an absolute obligation on the owner of a mine if a breach of regulations occurs. He is responsible, oven if what happens is in no sense his fault; even if it was done directly
506
against his directions he is responsible. I am not sure whether there is an escape clause there or not. That was the reference which I should have made to these cases. I should not have said there was this directors clause in the Acts I mentioned. If the owner of a mine or factory is a limited company, there is nothing in either of those Acts to put the onus of proof on the directors. The precise analogies between the wars were those cases where we inserted precisely this directors clause. We put it in the Official Secrets Act, 1920, the Dentists Act, 1921, the Treaty of Washington Act, 1922, the Representation of the People (No. 2) Act, 1922, the Dangerous Drugs and Poisons (Amendment) Act, 1923, the Theatrical Employers Registration Act, 1925, the Midwives and Maternity Homes Act, 1925, the Companies Act, 1928, the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, and the Building Societies Act, 1939.
Then came the war, and with it of course the Defence Regulations. And one of the Defence Regulations was in this form. I believe that there are a very large number of illustrations since the war in which Statutes have had this form of clause. As I see the noble Earl, Lord Munster, present, I should like to refer to the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1944. It was passed at the end of the war, but was intended to be permanent and to carry through the post-war period. Not for the first time the noble Earl spoke words alike of eloquence and sound common sense. I refer to them not in the least by way of criticism, but because I wish to use them to fortify my argument. The Lord Chancellor then was the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. On two pages in Hansard before this he had been in operation. He had no doubt been sitting where Lord Chancellors sit during Committee stage, and I have no doubt that, like all Lord Chancellors, he would be quick to point it out if any of his lieutenants made a mistake. But here was no mistake, but sound common sense on precisely the same clause.
On that occasion the question, it being compulsory to employ a certain number of disabled men, was what was to happen to the directors of a company which breached its obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, not perhaps the last of the Radicals, moved an Amendment to do away with this clause. which he did not like. It was in answer to him that the

507
noble Earl, Lord Munster, said words so apposite that I should like to quote them.
"If I accepted this Amendment it would render practically unenforceable the clauses of the Bill which deal with companies. In practice, I am advised the Amendment would mean that the director or officer of a company who has taken a decision which led to the company acting in contravention of the Bill could hardly in fact ever be made answerable. The facts showing consent or connivance on his part would hardly at any time be discoverable by those whose duty it would he to enforce the provisions of the Bill. On the other hand, these facts will he fully within the knowledge of the director or of the officer and he should not really have any difficulty whatever in proving his innocence."
So convinced was the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, by these arguments that he withdrew his Amendment.
I have been at pains to find out to what extent this provision has been enforced and I am told by the Director of Public Prosecutions that it has rarely been used. Its merit is rather that it acts in terrorem, and makes directors careful to avoid this sort of offence. I believe that the fact that it is there has been a valuable factor in preventing the commission of offences. After all, it is right that directors dealing with these important public matters should see to it that their company does not commit offences. I take the view that this Amendment, which I accept because I promised that I would accept it, is a great mistake. I believe that the pollution of our rivers has long been a public scandal. I believe, and all Parties agree, that we ought to take adequate and vigorous steps to stop this pollution. I believe that if we have such a provision in the Bill it would make it plain that a company committing an offence by pouring effluent into a river would be held responsible and I feel sure that it would be perfectly healthy and proper, and in accord with modern legislation, to hold them responsible. I explain this in accepting the Amendment because I promised to leave it to the collective wisdom of the House, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who I know has taken trouble to ascertain it, has shown that this Amendment represents the collective opinion of the House. But I am no party to this scheme. I think it is a mistake. I believe that it will be difficult to prove, as the noble Earl, Lord Munster, thought, that the directors are responsible. I believe that by inserting
508
this Amendment your Lordships will have gone a long way towards weakening the effectiveness of this Bill.
I should like to correct another error which has been made. The offence here is under Clause 2 (1) of the Act which says:
"Subject to this Act, a person commits an offence punishable under this section—
(a) if he causes or knowingly permits to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter; or…."
On the last occasion I said that I was inclined to think that if some worker, either by mistake or by malice aforethought, opened the wrong stopcock and allowed effluent to enter the river, the company would be responsible. I do not think that is right. It would not be right to say that the company "causes or knowingly permits"—and I stress"knowingly"—effluent to enter a stream unless the act has been done by some person for whom the company was responsible.
I should like, if I may, to make one observation in regard to the next Amendment. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will not move it. I realise that he is making a concession. but on further reflection I think the Amendment would cause great difficulty. It is one thing to take into consideration previous convictions when dealing with an offender after he has been found guilty, but we get into a region of great difficulty if we are to regard the question of previous convictions as a criterion of whether an offence has been committed. Therefore I would ask the noble Viscount not to move the next Amendment. If he is willing to adopt that course, I will consult with the draftsmen, and if I find that some tidying up is necessary I will put down on the Order Paper an appropriate Amendment on Third Reading, so that your Lordships can see it at that stage. I hope that your Lordships will agree that I am right in following what I have said before, and accepting the Amendment now before your Lordships in order to carry out the obvious wish of the House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. As he said, I took great trouble to ascertain the opinion of as many people as I could consult, and the consensus of opinion

509
was that it would not be right to shift the onus of proof. In putting the question to those whom I consulted, I assumed that it would make the situation the same as in the Factories and Mines Acts. I now see that both the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and I unintentionally went too far in thinking that. I will not go over all the arguments advanced before, some of which my noble and learned friend has dealt with to-day. I would only say that hard cases make bad laws. In cases where there is one man running a company, obviously it is right that he should be held liable. But I cannot see that because one man conducting a business must be considered responsible for all acts of omission and commission thereunder, it would be right to make equally liable, prima facie. masses of directors who could not have had anything to do with an offence—though I appreciate that they would probably not be prosecuted.
From the arguments we have heard, I draw the conclusion that sometimes this provision is inserted in Acts of Parliament and sometimes not. I think it is desirable that both Houses should consider the merits of the case on every Bill as it comes up and decide whether or not the onus should be shifted. Perhaps on some future occasion it would be worth while our considering whether a more limited clause cannot be drafted which meets the cases the Lord Chancellor has in mind—the one-man company, and so on—and yet is not so wide. I will not move the next Amendment if the Lord Chancellor feels that it would be a mistake. It represents a genuine attempt to meet a difficult case, but I did not look at it from the point of view of a previous conviction creating a criterion; it was only that the previous conviction shifted the onus of proof. I feel that if a company has been convicted under this Act, a special obligation is placed upon all the directors to see that every possible step is taken in future, and in that case they would be liable to be prosecuted, unless they could prove that they were innocent. I thought that I had done something rather ingenious, and I believe that at first blush the Lord Chancellor rather liked the look of it. However, if he feels on the whole that we had better
510
not have my Amendment, then I will certainly not move it, and I gladly accept the proposition he has put to us.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, like many of your Lordships I have taken some trouble to ascertain the state of our rivers, and I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor about the urgency of this matter. As it is going in the way it is, I would interpose to ask the Government to remember that the Amendment is, after all, in accordance with the, Common Law principles of our country. If necessary, I hope they will be prepared to vote some extra money towards clearing up the matter. One small man is prosecuted, but there are half a dozen others doing exactly the same thing. It is only by securing a conviction against one man that the fear of the law can be put into the others. Therefore, if we are willing to spend a little extra money, even though the prosecutions may not succeed, it will let people know that if they are caught transgressing against this Act prosecution will follow.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.5 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Registration of order under s. 3
"—(1) As soon as may be after an Order has been made under subsection (1) of the last foregoing section relating to any use or proposed us of land—

(a) it shall be registered in the prescribed manner in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of any county borough or county district council in whose area the land or any part of that land is situated; and

(b) it shall be the duty of the river board to supply a certified copy of the order to the proper officer of the council.

The power conferred by subsection (6) of section 15 of the Land Charges Act, 1925, to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of that section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this subsection, and in this subsection the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made in exercise of that power.
(2) If after the registration of an order under subsection (1) of this section any person (not being a person against whom personally the order had been made) commits an offence punishable under subsection (1) of section two of this Act and involving a use of land which contravenes the terms of such order, the provisions of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section shall apply in the same manner as if such order had been made against him personally:
Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not so apply if such person satisfies the Court that at the time of the offence he did not have actual knowledge of such order; and for this purpose subsection (1) of section one hundred and ninety-eight of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (by which the registration of any instrument or matter under the Land Charges Act, 1925, is deemed to constitute actual notice thereof) shall not be deemed to apply."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 3 provides that where a river board apprehends that a contravention of Clause 2 (1) is likely to occur, they can go to the court and secure an order prohibiting that contravention. Such an order, of course, would be perfectly valid, but would, I think, be an order against the individual owning a particular piece of land at the time. The River Boards Association, who are interested in this Amendment, feel that something more is necessary if their task is not to be made extremely difficult in applying this clause. They feel—and I think they may well be right—that the whole intention of Clause 3 could be defeated if there were a change of ownership in the land. If a river board had been to the court and secured an order against an individual, that order would no longer be valid if the individual were to sell the property, and they would have to apply for a fresh order from the court against the new owner. Incidentally, that would involve them in a great deal of trouble in going to the court and securing the orders; and secondly, it would involve a great amount of supervision of the river if they were to be aware of every change that was taking place. That is the reason why I have put down this Amendment.
A similar Amendment was put down in the other place, when two objections were raised to it. The first was that the method suggested in this Amendment—that is to say. that these orders should be registered as a land charge—is an improper way of dealing with the matter. and that the local land registries should not be used for such a purpose. I do not think there is a great deal of validity in that argument, certainly not since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, because all the land registries have been completely revolutionised by that Act, and there is now a mass of restrictions which are registered governing, every kind of use of land. The other objection was
512
that it would be unfair to impose on some new owner of land liability for the offences of his predecessor. Supposing his predecessor had offended once under this Act, then he would be liable to severer penalties on a second occasion. Though here I bow to the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, as it is a legal matter and I do not pretend to know the answer, I should have thought that since the original order applied to another individual, his past misdemeanours could not be held against some fresh individual if this Amendment were adopted. For those reasons I feel that there is a strong case for putting something of this kind into the Bill, and I am convinced that it will assist the river boards in carrying out their task. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR:: My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Amendment, and some of the reasons why have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. I feel that the Bill, as it stands, does make some provision against a newcomer being misled in any way. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 3 (5) he will see that it requires that the river board shall furnish to any person appearing to them to be interested particulars of any orders that have been made under subsection (1) of the clause. That, to begin with, is a good piece of information which would be supplied to the newcomer. But since the debate in another place the Government have tabled an Amendment to Clause 7 which provides that the river boards shall keep registers of conditions imposed with regard to new outlets and new discharges. Therefore the buyer will be fully aware of all that has happened to his predecessor, and will not buy in ignorance. I should think that, before making the purchase. he would take into account all he knows of what has happened in the past. I agree with the noble Lord's definition of what is intended by Clause 3. It is intended to be personal: that is to say, an instruction by a court to a particular person not to do something, or to cease from doing something. I cannot believe that the man who buys the land will deliberately do something which he knows will, in all

513
probability lead hint into court. I think the provision made is adequate, and I am advised that this Amendment cannot be accepted.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure we all wish to do the right thing here. I am a little worried, however, at the argument which the Paymaster General has advanced. To start with, I should like to know the answer to this question, as a piece of legal construction under the Bill, and also I should like to know the intention. Clause 3 deals with an order which is made against an occupier because he has committed a breach of the Act, or because something which is contemplated is likely to be a breach of the Act. What I want to know is this: Is it or is it not intended that that order, having been made, shall, so to speak, run with the land? Obviously it is only common sense that it should. It is no good making an order upon me if, when I sell the land to-morrow morning, the man who comes in is not equally bound. I gather that we are agreed upon that point. Then we agree that it is the common intention. Then if it is the common intention does the Bill, as drafted, give effect to it?
I will say exactly why I ask that question. As the Paymaster General has said, the Government have found it necessary—and I am very much obliged to them for their researches—to put down a number of Amendments to Clause 7, which is the clause dealing with the imposition of restrictions on new outlets. As I understand it, the reason the Government have put down those Amendments is because it was discovered that if land was sold, the restrictions on the new outlet would not apply to the purchaser. In fact, without the Amendment the restrictions would not run with the land and, therefore, the buyer would be in no way bound. If it is right—and I am sure it is—that the restrictions under Clause 7 should run with the land, then certainly the restrictions under Clause 3 should run with the land, and the Government have already indicated to me that that is their intention. I should have thought that we ought to have some analogous provisions in Clause 3. If it is not right that the Land Registry should be the machine—which is the object of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lloyd—why should not the register which, under the
514
Government's Amendments to Clause 7, it is now proposed should be instituted and kept by every river board, be the machine? I hope that I have made my difficulties clear, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor can resolve them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have made one mistake already in stating the law on this Bill, and I hesitate greatly in stating my views of the law upon a matter which I was not aware was going to be raised. With due respect to my noble friend Lord Macdonald, I am informed that the order under Clause 3 is not meant to run with the land. It is meant to be like an injunction: it is a mere order to enforce the general law and not an order to impose special duties. If anything has gone wrong, I will take an opportunity of looking into it between now and Third Reading and discussing it with the noble Viscount. If we find there is anything wrong, then we can put down an Amendment on Third Reading. I would rather leave it like that, if I may. I am merely telling your Lordships what I understand from those who have drafted the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think that is a very wise course. It is a novel question for me, too, and I would not rush in where Lord Chancellors fear to tread. There are, however, two points which occur to me on looking at Clause 3. One is that on page 5, line 20, the order is described as "an order made against a person." The second point which occurs to me is that one of the eases under Clause 3, where such an order might be applied for, is referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) as follows:
"by reason of any use or proposed use of a vessel in a defective state of repair for the carriage of cargoes…"
It would be rather difficult to imagine that an order obtained in that case ran with the vessel. I suppose that it would he an order against the owner or charterer of the vessel. I am far from saying what is right or wrong, but those considerations do occur to one when one looks closely at the language of the clause. Whether it should be otherwise s entirely another matter. I rather sympathise with what my noble friend Lord Lloyd has said.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, there seems to be a slight misunderstanding. I am not aware that I expressed an opinion.

515
It may be that when I nodded, the noble Viscount thought I was approving or agreeing to something.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought so.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I was not. I want to make it clear that I expressed no opinion, and where Lord Chancellors and ex-Lord Chancellors do not express an opinion I should hesitate to do so.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not think the noble Lord was expressing an opinion on the law. I thought he was expressing what was his intention.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, in withdrawing my Amendment, may I say two things? First, I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount for not putting down this Amendment earlier. It is rather a complicated one, and my attention was drawn to it only yesterday. The other thing which I should like to emphasise again is that the Amendment has been requested by the River Boards Association, who are the people who have to make this Bill workable, and I hope for that reason it will receive consideration. The noble Viscount has said that it will, and on that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was good enough to withdraw an Amendment at my request during the Committee stage. This Amendment is designed to do what he desired to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7. line 8. leave out ("animals or of other things") and insert ("things of any class or description").—(Lord Macdonald of Givaenysgor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I suppose the lawyers are satisfied that, having cut out the word "animals" and put in "things of any class or description." a "thing of any class or description" does include a live animal.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the advice I have received is that this Amendment will remove any doubt whether the subsection covers all kinds of articles that should not be washed in rivers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Alive or dead?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I was not given a clear description of that, but I understood that it included animals.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps the noble Lord will make sure of that.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I will look into it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Does it include a dirty human being?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I will look into that, too.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, during a previous stage of the Bill the Paymaster General was good enough to say that he would make sure whether or not the local authorities want this particular paragraph inserted. We all wish to do what the local authorities desire, and they have now had an opportunity of considering it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, at end insert—
("(d) for regulating the siting and construction of storm overflows of drains or sewers carrying both sewage effluent and surface water, and the mode of discharge of sewage therefrom.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount because he gave me plenty of time with regard to this Amendment. I am able to assure him that we have been into both the questions he raised—whether the Minister had consulted the local authorities and why the provision is in the Scottish Bill and not in this one. As regards the first inquiry, I may say that the Minister has consulted local authorities and the result of the consultation was that two associations—the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils' Association—are strongly opposed to the principle of the Amendment. As regards the second inquiry, I may say that the Scottish Bill and the English Bill have been brought into line in this matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLOYDmoved to add to subsection (1):
"and before making any such by-laws shall make such survey (if any) as may be necessary of the area it which that stream or part of a stream is situated"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which my noble friend said he was going to put down again on the Report stage. The Amendment concerns the recommendation of the Hobday Report about the making of a survey. I do not think I need go into detail. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 20, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Lloyd.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think there should be some slight Amendment to this Amendment. After the word "by-laws," in the Amendment as printed, ought there not to be the words:
"by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection."?
I think the Government wanted that.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment as printed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment in its amended form.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 20, at end insert—
("and before making any such by-laws by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection shall make such survey (if any) as may be necessary of the area in which that stream or part of a stream is situated")— (Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am pleased to accept the Amendment as amended.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (2) to delete "or not to be." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, which is rather reminiscent of Hamlet, deals with a small point of a technical nature. I have put down the Amendment to obtain an indication of the Government's intentions on this matter. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 provides that when river boards make these by-laws they may provide what proportion of effluent is to be allowed, as it were, as a minimum. If
518
the effluent is a powerful one it would have to be more diluted to be permissible, and vice versa. It is a question of the degree or pollution. This subsection now says that these by-laws may provide for an effluent
"to be, or not to he, so treated according to the relation between the volume and rate of the flow of water…."
This leads one to believe that in some cases the standard might be completely abandoned. Some minimum standard should, however, be laid down, and my object is to obtain from the Government an assurance that there will be such a standard, except in very exceptional instances. In estuarial. waters there may be a high ratio of water in comparison with the effluent. That would be an exceptional case, in which one would not wish to lay down a standard. We should like an assurance that these words are intended to cover only exceptional cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("or not to be")— (Lord Lloyd.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I anticipated that this Amendment was put down for the purpose which the noble Lord mentioned, and I wanted to be able to give some such assurance as the noble Lord desired. I can give him this assurance: that the Minister will have regard to all relevant factors, will not allow the use of this power to permit small discharges into a stream of a substance, which, because of its highly toxic character, ought not be be admitted even in the smallest quantities.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges]:
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, this is little more than a drafting Amendment. Under this subsection, when the river board' receive an application for consent for outlet or discharge they may either grant it or not, as they feel disposed. This seeks merely to give them the right, before making up their minds, to receive full information about the proposed discharge,

519
since without this information they will be unable to arrive at a proper decision as to whether or not to give their consent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35, after ("may") insert ("require the submission of plans, sections and specifications of the new or altered outlet, or full particulars of the new discharge, as the case may be, and may").—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is not necessary to achieve the purpose the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD LLOYD: So long as the noble Lord is satisfied that the intention of the Bill is carried out, I will not press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 36, leave out from ("impose") to end of line 38 and insert ("being—

(a) in the case of a new or altered outlet, conditions as to the point of discharge into the stream or the construction of the outlet, or as to the use of that outlet or any other outlet for trade or sewage effluent from the same land or premises; and

(b) in the case of a new discharge, conditions as to the nature and composition, volume or rate of discharge of effluent from the land or premises from which the new discharge is to be made.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment, consequent on the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("requirements") and insert ("conditions").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 42, leave out ("authority") and insert ("board").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGORmoved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) Where, without the consent of the river board, there is brought into use a new or altered outlet for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream, or there begins to be made a new discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream, the river board may give the person using the outlet or making the discharge, as the case may be, a notice imposing any such conditions as they might have imposed on an application for their consent for bringing the outlet into use or beginning to make the discharge.
(5) A river board shall from time to time review any condition imposed under this section (other than a condition to be satisfied before an outlet is brought into use or a new discharge begins to be made), and may give the person using the outlet or making the discharge, as the case may be, a notice making any reasonable variation of or revoking any such condition; and the Minister may, if he thinks fit so to do direct the board to vary or revoke any such condition and, if the board fail within such period as the Minister may allow to give effect to any such direction, the Minister may himself give a notice as aforesaid.
(6) Any conditions imposed under this section shall continue in force (subject to any variations under the last foregoing subsection) until revoked under that subsection, and shall he binding on any person using the outlet, or discharging effluent from the land or premises, to which the condition relates.
(7) Every river board shall maintain a register containing such particulars as the Minister may direct of conditions which have been imposed under this section in relation to outlets in their area, or in relation to effluent from land or premises in their area, and are for the time being in force (except conditions to he satisfied before the outlet is brought into use or the new discharge begins to be made), and so much of the register as relates to any outlet. or to any land or premises—

(a) shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by any person appearing to the river board to he interested in the outlet, or in the land or premises, as the case may be, or by any person authorised by him; and

(b) in favour of a person charged under this section with causing or knowingly permitting to enter a stream an effluent not complying with any such conditions, shall he conclusive as to the conditions with which the effluent is required to comply."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (4) gives the river board the option of imposing conditions in respect of new outlets or new discharges that have been operated without prior consent. Subsection (5) provides that conditions (other than those to be satisfied before a new outlet is brought into use or a new discharge is made) shall be reviewed from time to time by the river board. It allows

521
for variations to meet altered conditions. The Minister is empowered to direct the board to vary or revoke conditions anti may himself do so if the board fail to give effect to the direction. The power is rendered necessary by the next succeeding subsection. Subsection (6) provides that, unless varied under subsection (5), conditions shall continue in force until revoked, and shall be binding on any person using the outlet or discharging effluent from the land or premises. Subsection (7) provides that the river board shall maintain a register of conditions imposed. Persons appearing to the river board to be interested are authorised to inspect entries relating to land or pre rises with which they are concerned. The entry is to be conclusive evidence, in favour of a person charged with an offence under the clause, as to the conditions with which the effluent must comply.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 43, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I must congratulate the Paymaster-General an I the Parliamentary draftsmen on having c one such an enormous amount in so short a time. Not only have they got this worthy and extremely complicated Bill into a much better form, but they have at the same time carried Scotland with them, unifying the English and Scottish Biils in the process. The noble Lord was good enough to make me an apology for the fact that the Amendments could not appear on the Order Paper earlier. I would say merely that I think it is remarkable that they have got on to the Order Paper at all within the time. It certainly is much more satisfactory that we should see them here, and dispose of them now; then any little adjustment that may have to be made can be done on Third Reading. I readily accept this and the following Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, leave out from ("conditions") to ("by") in line 25, and insert ("or of any variation of any conditions shall be
522
determined for the purposes of this section").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the existing subsection (7), as amended by this Amendment, provides penalties for contraventions of the provisions of tie clause in regard to the opening of new outlets and the beginning to make new discharges. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("where a person, in contravention of this section, brings into use a new or altered outlet or begins to make a new discharge without obtaining the consent of the river board or without observing any conditions imposed by the river board in giving their consent under this section (being conditions to be satisfied before the outlet is brought into use or the new discharge begins to be made), he").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, subsection (8) provides that if a person discharges an effluent which does not comply with conditions imposed under the clause, he shall be guilty of an offence punishable under Clause 2. This is necessary because a discharge may conceivably comply with a standard imposed by a by-law which has taken into account the conditions imposed, and compliance with that by-law would be a defence against proceedings. Subsection (9) applies to Clause 3 of the Bill for the purpose of restraining apprehended contraventions. of subsection (8). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, at end insert—
("(8) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to enter a stream by an outlet, or from land or premises, in relation to which conditions have been imposed under this section and are for the time being in force, a trade or sewage effluent not complying with those conditions, and any person who does so shall he guilty of an offence punishable under section two of this Act.
(9) Section three of this Act shall apply in relation to the last foregoing subsection as it applies in relation to subsection (1) of section two of this Act.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide that, if proceedings are taken under

523
Clause 3 of the Bill because there has been a breach of conditions imposed in regard to a new outlet or a new discharge the expression "stream" in Clause 3 shall be interpreted as having the much wider meaning it has in this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, at end insert ("and the expression 'stream' in section three of this Act as applied by the last foregoing subsection shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 9:
Combination of sewage disposal or sewerage systems
(3) Where the Minister makes an order under the said paragraph (b), the local authorities concerned may enter into an agreement for giving effect to the order and as to their respective rights and liabilities in relation to the communication or discharge, and in the event of any failure to agree the difference shall be determined by the Minister.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that where one or more of the local authorities concerned is a development corporation within the meaning of the New Towns Act, 1946, any such difference as aforesaid shall he referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1950."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that this Amendment is of some substance. Clause 9 provides that in certain circumstances local authorities may have to combine their sewerage arrangements in districts or in some other way. That clause gives the Minister power to order them to do so, and, if they cannot agree as to their respective rights and liabilities, it gives the Minister the responsibility of determining any difference that may arise between them. The Amendment I am moving is at the instance of the Hertfordshire County Council, my own home county council, who are particularly affected by the question of new towns and development corporations, such as Stevenage. The County Council are rather apprehensive about this matter because, of course, a development corporation comes within the meaning of the term "local authority". In point of fact, they apprehend that several boroughs or local authorities may be compelled to join up their sewerage systems with the
524
new system which is running from Stevenage, and that there may arise some such question as is envisaged in this clause.
We really come back to our old friend of the Minister being judge in his own case, because clearly the Minister of Local Government and Planning who is responsible for these development corporations is the Minister referred to in this Bill. Therefore, if there were to be such a dispute, the Minister would be placed in the position of having to be judge in his own case. That is a principle which we, on this side, have always felt to be wrong. I know it has been argued that there is a precedent for this in the New Towns Act of 1946, where, under Section 9, again in exactly similar circumstances, the Minister was appointed as arbitrator in such matters. In that case, however, when that Act was passed the Minister was the Minister of Health. Therefore, if there was a dispute between a development corporation of a new town and any other local authority, the Minister was an impartial person. Since then, as your Lordships know, the public health functions of the Minister of Health have devolved upon the Minister of Local Government and Planning. Therefore, not only do I think that the principle in this Bill is wrong but, in point of fact, I think that the original provisions of the New Towns Act, 1946, are also wrong. They were right when they were passed but something has happened in the meantime which has introduced into that Act a principle of which I entirely disapprove. I do not feel that that Act should be cited as any precedent for resisting this Amendment. I think it is quite wrong that the Minister should be allowed to be a judge in his own case. For that reason, I feel that if there is such a dispute between a local authority and a development corporation, it should be referred to arbitration, as I have suggested in the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lloyd.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, says he does not think we ought to refer back to the Act of 1946. He knows that that is where the weakness

525
of his case lies. The Act of 1946 enables the Minister of Local Government and Planning, as successor to the Minister of Health, to decide what contribution shall be made by development corporations and local authorities respectively to one another towards expenses they incur in connection with the sewerage and sewage disposal o. new towns. That is the law at the moment, and this Amendment would cut right across that principle. For that reason only, I think that I should be fully justified in refusing the Amendment. I agree that maybe it will be necessary, sooner or later, to look at the law in the 1946 Act, but I am quite sure that this is neither the occasion nor the Bill in which we can consider dealing with that debatable point. This is a Bill dealing solely wit the prevention of pollution. I cannot believe it is the right place for an amendment of principles that have been carefully worked out as part of the general pl in for facilitating the development of the new towns. The Ministry have had no request from any local authority associations that this Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, should like to say a word on the point made that no applications have been received. I understand that this is practically the one case where there is likely to be a conflict between a new town and a county council, and it was not unreasonable that the county should go to their county representative. I hope we shall not dismiss the matter because they did not also write to the Minister of Local Government and Planning. Surely this is not a case of amending some other Act or making a great new principle; it is one of doing what is right and reasonable in this non-contentious Bill. Surely the Minister's argument was not a sound one when he said that we are only following precedent; we are not. If the Minister of Health were the Minister who was going to arbitrate, I should be quite content. The Minister of Local Government and Planning has succeeded to this task because, under the devolution plan and the proliferation of Ministeries that has been going on, some functions have devolved from the Minister of Health to the Minister of Local Government and Planning. But when the 1946 Act was passed, this power of decision was given
526
to the Minister of Health, and he was a completely impartial Minister. Our contention is that the Minister of Local Government and Planning cannot, by the nature of the case, be an impartial Minister, because he himself is the promoter and largely the financier of these new satellite towns. We ought not so readily to accept that he should be the judge in his own cause.
I am going to make a practicable and constructive suggestion which I am sure will satisfy the whole House—namely, that in these cases, which will not arise very often, the Minister should he the most impartial and judicial of all Ministers, the Lord Chancellor. He has given us great help over this Bill. In his judicial decisions he has always given us the most complete satisfaction, even when he has decided against us. If a judicial decision has to be taken—it has got to be a Minister: the Paymaster General does not like arbitration—why cannot the Lord Chancellor solve our difficulty for us by taking on this one little extra job?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to add one point in support of my noble friends. This Bill will be thought to bear very hardly on a number of people. They are going to be sternly checked and stopped from doing something that they have been doing with glorious impunity for seventy-five years. We do not want to exacerbate the feelings of anybody who ought to help in carrying out this Bill. If we leave the situation as it is at present and local authorities feel that they have not received justice, they will never feel that they have been fairly judged. If we insert this proviso, however, and the arbitration goes against them, we may well reckon that there will be no sore feelings and that they w.11 do their best to carry out the judgment given against them. Therefore I suggest it would be to the good of the Government to consider this matter a little further. This is a Bill which is going to be resented in certain quarters, and we do not want to rouse any more resentment than is necessary.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, seems to suggest that there is a possibility of this Amendment being made more acceptable, and I agree that between now arid Third Read-

527
ing we may have talks. Past talks have brought much understanding between us, but in this case I am very doubtful. There is another factor that I ought to mention here. I am advised that it is possible that a question of privilege could be raised if this Amendment were inserted. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, might consider withdrawing his Amendment now, and we could have talks to see whether there is anything we can do between now and Third Reading. I do not want to give any undertaking in this regard, but we can have talks.
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance, and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONmoved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Reports of river boards
"The Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament copies of the reports of river boards sent to him in each year under section twelve of the River Boards Act, 1948."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that in putting down this clause in this very simple form I suggest merely that the reports of the river boards should be laid before Parliament. I have excluded the other two suggestions, in regard to reports by the Ministers and one other matter, which I made before and to which the Government took exception. This Amendment now merely gives effect to the undertaking given by the Minister in another place, that he would put down an Amendment in regard to laying before each House of Parliament the reports of the river boards. There is also a consequential Amendment to the Title. It is the last Amendment on the Marshalled List. It amends the Title of the Bill and brings this matter within the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I accept this Amendment, and in doing so I want to express my appreciation to the noble Viscount for the way in which he has now worded it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation]
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I said on a previous occasion all that I need to say on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 13, at end, insert: "'tidal waters' includes the waters of any enclosed dock which adjoins tidal waters;".—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, all I can say is that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for the manner in which he withdrew the Amendment on Committee stage, and I accordingly accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Transitional and other consequential provisions]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17. line 24. leave out from ("shall") to ("if") in line 26, and insert ("be deemed for the purposes of that section to do so with the consent of the river board").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, at end insert ("and to provide for laying before Parliament the annual reports of river boards").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Extension of power to make advances to National Coal Board, and of temporary borrowing powers of Board]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: On Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord the Paymaster General said that on Committee stage he would try to elucidate for us a little further what the Minister meant when he said in another place:
"Parliament will, of course, retain control over the advances which are made. The Minister of Fuel and Power and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must both give their consent, and at any moment the House can call them to account."
I do not want to repeat what I said on the last occasion, but the noble Lord promised that he would obtain an explanation of that very important undertaking, and it seems particularly desirable that we should have it to-day, in view of the fact that to-morrow your Lordships are to debate the whole position of national boards under the nationalised industries. Therefore the explanation which the noble Lord is now about to give us will be doubly welcome and I am sure most informative.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, also asked another question, which he has not repeated to-day, relating to lie personnel of the new Coal Boards.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We now have that information.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Then that question has been answered. On this particular question I took it upon myself to consult with the Minister in person. Knowing that the noble Viscount is sometimes a little suspicious of a mere departmental reply, and that he inclines more to a personal reply, I saw the Minister himself, and asked whether he would provide me with some statement that I might make in reply to the noble Viscount's question. This is the statement I have received; I will read it all, and then there will be no misunderstanding. The statement says that the extent to which Ministers can he expected to answer to Parliament for the actions of the nationalised industries is by this time well known, and remains unchanged—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is it?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: —but it is necessary to draw a distinction between a Minister's general responsibilty for a nationalised industry and his particular responsibility
530
for the discharge of a duty or function laid on him by an Act of Parliament. Section 26 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, which this Bill seeks to amend, empowers the Minister of Fuel and Power to advance Exchequer monies to the National Coal Board for certain purposes. Clearly, Parliament is entitled to ask him at any time how much he has advanced under this authority and for what purpose. It does not follow, however, that the Minister accepts responsibility for, and can be questioned on, the detailed execution of the plan. The execution of the national plan for coal must be a responsibility resting squarely on the National Coal Board, and, while the Minister will continue to deal with major issues of policy on the appropriate Parliamentry occasions, he cannot be expected to answer questions relating to the Board's day-to-day administration.
The means of Parliamentary control may therefore be summarised as follows:

(1) the overriding limit to the advances contained in the Act itself;

(2) the annual limit of £40,000,000 which has now been included in the Bill;

(3) the accountability of the Minister to Parliament for his acts as Minister, in particular for his excercise of his statutory power to make advances;

(4) examination by the Public Accounts Committee of the Minister's annual account of his transactions with the Board; and

(5) periodical debates in Parliament on the Board's accounts and report.

There is an explanation of the statement made in another place by the right honourable gentleman.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are all deeply indebted to the Paymaster-General for his characteristic courtesy in having gone personally into the matter, and for having read to us the elaborate statement which we have just heard. It is all now as clear as the polluted rivers which we have just been discussing.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill Reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution). Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF MATERIALS BILL
3.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading, of this Bill. The Government thought that it would help Parliament, in considering this important measure, to publish the White Paper on the Ministry of Materials (Command Paper 8278), which the Prime Minister presented in the middle of June. The White Paper explains the provisions of the Bill, the responsibilities which it is proposed that the Lord Privy Seal, as Minister of Materials shall exercise when the Bill becomes law, and the provisions of the Orders in Council from which the Minister will derive most of his statutory powers. Copies of the draft Orders in Council are annexed to the White Paper, so that Parliament may see in detail what is proposed. I do not intend to go over, point by point, the ground covered by the White Paper, as I am sure that all the points are already in the minds of noble Lords who have read the Report of the debates in another place. This is an important Bill, which marks a major step forward in the handling. of raw materials questions. but its terms are simple.
The issue which it raises for the House is whether power should be given to appoint a Minister of Materials. It is an enabling measure and leaves the Minister's functions to be conferred upon him under the normal constitutional processes by which Ministers acquire new functions. To make up their minds on the question whether it is right to set up a Ministry of Materials, the House will no doubt want to be satisfied on two main points. First, why do the Government think that, instead of continuing or reorganising the existing arrangements, an entirely new Department should be set up? Secondly, are the Government's proposals for the new Department broadly on the right lines? The starting point is, of course, the seriousness of the raw materials position. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place on June 27:
"At present the supply of raw materials and their prices are, between them, really the two most vital problems on the economic side with which the Government have to deal."
532
The chief short-term factor in causing the present difficulties, which, as the House know, are world-wide. has undoubtedly been rearmament but this is not the only factor, and there are also serious longterm problems. I would not say that the position is the same in the case of every material, but, quite apart from rearmament, we must be prepared for a growing, world demand to meet civilian needs as populations increase, industrialisation proceeds. and standards of living rise. At the same time, world reserves of some important materials are being exhausted. The question which the Government had to consider was what, in these circumstances, were the best arrangements for handling problems connected with the supply of raw materials which are essential for rearmament, for full employment and for civilian needs.
There are, broadly, two major considerations which have led the Government to the conclusion that the public interest will be best served by the appointment of a Minister who is able to devote the whole of his time and energy to these pressing and important problems. First, this will make it possible for problems of raw materials to receive more concentrated attention. The Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply are large Departments, having many other duties, and the burdens upon the Minister of Supply and his officials have, of course, been increased by the rearmament programme. The Ministers and their senior officials cannot neglect their other duties and give up the whole, or even most, of their time to one aspect of their responsibilities, however important it may be. The Minister of Materials and the senior officials of his Department will, on the other hand, be able to devote all their efforts to these matters.
Secondly, there is the international side. As the House know, it is the Government's policy that raw materials problems of common concern shall be handled so far as possible in full co-operation with the Commonwealth countries, in full cooperation with the United States and other foreign countries. We are taking a leading part in the International Materials Conference which has been set up in Washington, and in the various commodity Committees connected with it: and, as was announced last week, we have recently proposed to other Commonwealth Governments that a meeting shall

533
be held later this year between representatives of Commonwealth Governments to consider problems connected with the production and supply of raw materials and manufactured goods. For the purpose of the International. Materials Conference, and other International and. Commonwealth discussions and negotiations, it will be a great advantage to have one Minister who cart co-ordinate our policy, and to whom our official representatives will be responsible.
In coming to this decision, the Government naturally took full account of the arguments on the other side. We recognise that, other things being equal, there is a good case for continuing the existing arrangements, under which the same Department is responsible for a particular industry ail the way through, from the supply of materials to the completion of manufacture. This was one of the reasons why, in 1946, it was decided to transfer to the Board of Trade the responsibilities of the Ministry of Supply for the raw materials of industries for which the Board of Trade were responsible in other respects. Bat other things arc no longer equal. It is a question of balance of advantages, and we are satisfied that any inconvenience which may be caused will be greatly offset by the advantages I have mentioned. Just as (luring the war it was considered desirable that there should be a separate Raw Materials Department (it was then part of the Ministry of Supply) so, in conditions as they are now and are likely to be for some years to come, it will, we arc satisfied, be best to concentrate the responsibility for raw materials in the hands of one Minister.
I hope that the White Paper will have given the House a good idea of what the new Department will look like when it is set up. As I have said, I do not propose to go through the White Paper point by point, but it may help the House if I make a few general comments. In the first place, I should like to stress that, while we are setting up a new Department, it will be staffed so far as possible by the people in the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply who are already engaged on the work. Generally speaking, therefore, industry will continue to deal with the same people as at present, and nobody need fear that there will be any dislocation on this account. Nor is there any question of large additions to the staffs. This is a point on which I
534
know the Lord Privy Seal feels strongly, and any increase in staff will be kept to the absolute minimum.
Secondly, the duties of the Minister of Materials are set out briefly in paragraph 2 of the White Paper. It will be his duty
to do everything possible to ensure adequate supplies of the materials with which he is concerned. Where they are dealt with of public account, he will be responsible for their purchase and sale. Where appropriate, he will take steps to increase the production of materials of which supplies are or may become inadequate, to promote their economical use, salvage and recovery, and to develop the production and use of substitutes."
As the White Paper also explains,
the broad principle which has been followed in assigning materials to the Minister has been that, unless in a particular instance the public interest would be better served by some other arrangement, he should be responsible for raw materials up to the point at which they enter into manufacturing industry."
But, as the White Paper goes on to say:
"Clearly, no hard and fast rule can he laid down, and it has been necessary to consider each case individually and to decide what arrangement would he most advantageous in till the circumstances, including in particular the structure of the industry concerned."
I should have thought that this was good common sense but, judging from what some of the critics of the Government have said, they seem to think that we should have applied a uniform pattern in every case, regardless of the circumstances and the convenience of industry.
Our approach was quite different. It was practical rather than theoretical, and I am sure that it was right. We started from the proposition that, unless there were good reasons to the contrary, the Minister of Materials should be responsible for the different raw materials at present within the scope of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, and should he responsible for them up to the point at which they enter into manufacturing industry. But we did not forget the great variations in circumstances, and the need for adapting the detailed arrangements to them. Each case was examined carefully, with a view to deciding what would be best in the public interest and with special regard to the convenience of industry. The Lord Privy Seal, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply discussed the Government's proposals with representatives of the F.B.I. and the T.U.C.; and, in addition, there were discussions with

535
the representatives of the cotton and wool trades, the light and non-ferrous metals industries, and the British Chemical Manufacturers' Association on the proposals affecting them. As a result of these discussions, important modifications were, in fact, made in the proposals.
There has also been some comment on paragraph 17 of the White Paper, which deals with the arrangements for distribution. Through the courtesy of the noble Viscount who is to follow me I gather that that is one of the points he has in mind. It has been suggested, in particular, that the Minister of Materials ought to take over the responsibility for settling the broad allocation of materials among the different classes of user which, under the Government's proposals will continue to be the responsibility of the interdepartmental Committee presided over by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount will remember that that Committee is largely the same Committee as that over which he presided at one time at the beginning of the war—the Raw Materials Committee. I think, however, that this view is due to a misconception.
It is, of course, essential that the Minister of Materials should have a full say in the broad allocation of materials he is responsible for obtaining. This is accepted and will be secured. But some of the questions which arise in determining what the allocation should be extend far beyond the scope of the Ministry of Materials. It is necessary, for example, to decide between the competing claims of rearmament and civilian needs, exports and production for the home market, agriculture and manufacturing industry, and other general questions of economic policy. Such questions fall within the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sphere of responsibility as part of his function of co-ordinating economic policy.
My last point is this. The Bill provides for the appointment of a Minister of Materials, but there is no finality about the detailed arrangements described in the White Paper. Conditions will change. Experience may—and I have no doubt will—suggest points on which improvements can be made. I should like to assure the House that there will be no lack of readiness on the part of the Lord Privy Seal and the Government to make
536
any changes in the arrangements which changing conditions and experience may prove to be desirable. And in particular we shall always be glad to hear the views of industry and shall do our best to meet its convenience. The scheme set out in the White Paper may not be free from drawbacks. They are the price which must be paid for the substantial advantages we expect to derive from it. But, taking everything into account, we have no doubt that the public interest will be best served by the step we propose—the concentration of responsibilities for the supply of raw materials and related questions so far as possible in one Minister and one Department. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
4.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, in considering this Bill, I think we can start from a fairly large area of common ground. There are three points upon which all noble Lords would agree. The first is that the proper supply of raw materials is vital to the existence of this country; the second is that raw materials at the present time are seriously scarce; and the third, which I think is implicit in the Bill and the Government's action at the present time, is that some improvement is necessary in the procurement of raw materials. No doubt that is why the Government have brought in this Bill and proposed the solution contained in it and in the White Paper which came with it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was at some pains in his speech to make it clear that the Bill was flexible and enabling, and that the Government are not firmly wedded to this course or that but are prepared to have an open mind and to discuss the matter with industry, the Dominions, and everybody else concerned, to see that the plans for procuring raw materials, if they do not turn out to be the right plans, can be improved in the light of experience as, time goes on. Noble Lords on these Benches were glad to hear that statement from the noble Viscount, because we feel that this Bill deals with a matter that is most important at the present time. I am sure that we are at one with noble Lords opposite in desiring the best possible arrangements for the procurement of raw materials, and the best possible state of

537
feeling with United States and other nations concerned in the matter. Such difference as there is concerns much more the proposals put before us to-day and whether en not they will be adequate to deal with the serious situation that has been described to us.
We have the Bill and the White Paper; and we have the proposal for a Minister and a Ministry. Let me say at once that we on this side of the House feel that there is probably a stronger case for the Minister than for the Ministry. We have heard a good deal about who has been consulted and what will be the benefits of the detailed organisation in Whitehall and in the British Delegation at. Washington, but I do not think we can feel in the least convinced that the arrangements proposed in the Bill and the White Paper by themselves will necessarily have the effect of improving the position in regard to the supply and procurement of raw materials. They may possibly contribute to a solution of the problem, but I think that success in this field depends on something a good deal wider and more important than the matters of machinery with which this Bill deals, important as they may be in their own sphere. We have heard that various organisations, such as The Federation of British Industries, The Trades Union Congress, and the cotton and chemical people, have been consulted. I am not sure at what stage they were consulted. Were they consulted in the early Jays, when the shape of this proposal was being discussed; or were they given the shape of the proposal and told to make the best of it? That is fairly important.
Another question, which is allied to it, is this: At what stage were the Commonwealth representatives brought into these discussions? We on these Benches are glad to see the references made by the noble Viscount and his right honourable friend in another place to the Commonwealth Conference. I see from this morning's paper that Mr. Stokes has now announced that the Conference will take place in the autumn. We are delighted to see that because although we must all realise that a great deal of the negotiating for raw materials must of necessity take place in Washington, the fact that so much goes on in Washington must not allow us to blind ourselves to the fact
538
that the Commonwealth countries occupy a large place in this question of the supply of raw materials. However much we arrange matters so as to facilitate our dealings with the United States, we must never allow ourselves o forget that it is equally incumbent upon us to see that everything in regard to the supply of raw materials proceeds smoothly as between the different countries of the Commonwealth, and, indeed, for that matter the Colonial Empire.
We are glad to see Mr. Stokes's announcement that the Commonwealth Conference is to take place in the autumn and that most of the Commonwealth countries have accepted. After what the noble Viscount has said, we feel confident that when the agenda for that Conference comes to be framed, flexibility and open-mindedness will be the keynote. I feel that between now and the autumn a certain number of spanners will be discovered in the works, and the co-operation of all concerned will be necessary for them to be removed. As I said, I feel—and I do not think noble Lords opposite will disagree—that the genesis of this Bill and the White Paper has been the working the International Maerials Conference in Washington and of the organisation over which my noble friend Lord Knollys presides. I believe that the work of Lord Knollys and of the new Minister, Mr. Stokes, and the actual proceedings of the Conference, are going to be much more important to the success or failure of our attempts to secure raw materials than any piece of machinery set out in this Bill, however good it may be.
To come back to the cause of this Bill: we are short of a number of raw materials. Sulphur is probably the one which gets most of the headlines in these days, and sulphur begs the question of our agricultural production. We have the various ores, which begs the question of whether our programme of production for defence will keep up to time. I am going to resist the temptation to go down the road of defence production, because, as noble Lords know, there will be an opportunity later in the Session to deal with that subject. I will content myself with saying that this question of the procurement of raw materials will exercise a dominant influence on the timing of our defence programme, and if it goes wrong, then our defence programme—I will not say will

539
go wrong, but has gone wrong already. Then there is the question of wool. That is something which, in some respects, is even more a Commonwealth matter than a world matter. I will not comment further about that, because I believe my noble friend Lord Barnby has something to say to your Lordships in a few moments.
That is the outline of the problem. So far the only reason we have been given why the Bill is necessary is that all these matters can be dealt with more expeditiously, economically and efficiently if the whole of the procurement of raw materials is concentrated in one Ministry and one Minister, so that there is only one channel of communication between the production departments at home and Lord Knollys, or whoever it may be, in Washington. But it will not be quite like that, because, as the White Paper says, the Minister of Supply will still deal with iron ore and most of the things required to make steel. There was a slight mention of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and we must not forget that the Treasury have their organisation in Washington in parallel with Mr. Stokes' organisation, although independent of it, and the Treasury will no doubt go on having the whip hand, as they always have, when the question of expenditure or prices comes to the fore.
But, apart from the question of machinery, we still have to get down to the problem of how we are to improve our methods of procurement. I believe that the solution lies in a direction that has not yet been mentioned in the discussions on this Bill, either in another place or in your Lordships' House. Suppose you were setting out in business to buy a commodity of some sort or other, and you were choosing your buyers: it strikes me that in order to choose successful buyers you would look for three qualities. First, you would look for the quality of foresight, for people who had the knack of being able to anticipate the market. Then you would look for people with knowledge of the commodity and of the market, so that your buyers would be more likely than not to buy at the right time and the right price. Above all, and more important than the other two, you would look for people who could create or maintain good will with the prospective seller. If anything has
540
gone wrong with our arrangements for procuring raw materials, surely it must have been in one of those three directions; and, if that is so, then no amount of streamlining of Government Departments or committees will by itself put it right.
Let us look for a moment at what is the prospect of improvement in the three directions I have mentioned. Let me admit that there is some prospect. I regard the presence of Lord Knollys in Washington as a very important factor for efficient buying and the creation of good will. Equally, I should say that, from the material available in his Party, Mr. Stokes is undoubtedly a good selection. I had the fortunate opportunity of travelling back with him from Canada when he was returning from his first mission to Washington a few weeks ago. I gathered that he had made a good start and that he himself felt that he had made a good beginning in this vital question of the establishment of good will. We all wish him the best of fortune and of success in that direction.
But when we come to his supporting cast, can we be certain that the mere fact of changing over a certain number of people—I was glad to see that the number is not going to be greatly increased —from one Ministry to another will make any great difference in the efficiency of the buying? However good your people at the top may be, they must rely for the day-to-day operations on the skill of the individual. It is not as if the Government organisations for buying had had a perfectly clean record ever since they started doing such things. I know that everyone can make mistakes, but when one thinks of the business of Canadian zinc, for example, in 1950, and how it turned out to be such a pity that we stopped buying Canadian zinc in order to save dollars, one is not convinced that the mere fact of changing over the same staff from one Ministry to another is going to produce all the improvements which could he produced and are necessary.
There is another matter which made me a little suspicious. I do not think the noble Viscount mentioned it in this House, but his right honourable friend said in another place that this Bill does not necessarily mean entering into a greater range of public purchasing. What does "not necessarily" mean? It may

541
mean that we shall find the public purchase sector being extended on some pretext or other. I am bound to say that this seems to be the last moment when such a thing ought to be done. I very much hope that the private sector will at least be left alone and that the ordinary private experts—the ordinary buyers and the ordinary business people—will at least be allowed to go on doing the business which they have been doing for a lifetime. I honestly hope that I am wrong in reading into what was said in another place the possibility of this change of organisation being the prelude to an extension of public buying and the contraction of private enterprice.
With the creation of this new Ministry we have another trouble to face which I think is inevitable. If there is a change of organisation, ordinary people (and I should do the same myself if I were in their place) will certainly want to take stock of the position and make certain that they do not set the wrong precedents by acting in a hurry when the new Ministry is in process of formation. I cannot see how any new Ministry or Minister can possibly get to work without a delay —a delay, at least, in matters of short-term business. As I think was said in another place, there are two objectives, the short-term and the long-term. Perhaps under other conditions we might be very long-term minded and feel that the short-term could take care of itself, and that sacrifices could be made in the short-term policy. With the present state of the world, however, and with the present urgency of the defence programme, I do not think we can take that view about the short-term policy. The short-term policy is vital because it is tied to our defence programme, and any delays which are caused in tie ordinary course of business in the setting up of a new Ministry will do damage quite out of proportion to what they would in normal times; therefore they are not things to be accepted.
I have raised a certain number of doubts on this Bill. I want to finish by repeating that although we are not convinced that the Bill is anything more than a very problematical solution to a relatively small part of the question, none the less we are intensely anxious that everything possible should be done to improve our procurement of raw materials under conditions of the best possible good will
542
with the United States, with the Commonwealth countries and with others with whom we have to deal. We shall not support this Bill, but we shall not oppose it. As time goes on I feel sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with me when I say that this question of raw material purchase is one which Parliament would do well to keep under close review and take stock of from time to time, to see whether the proposals are the right ones or not. We understand, through the usual channels, that His Majesty's Government attach importance to the Bill becoming law as soon as possible. Therefore, just as we shall not oppose it, so we shall not raise difficulties to the speedy passage of the Bill into law.
4.26 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Viscount who is in charge of this Bill today that noble Lords who sit in this part of the House support the Bill and do not take the line of the last speaker. We support it largely for the reasons so clearly given by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander and for the reasons given in the earlier part of his speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgman. Additionally, we feel that it would be inconsistent on our part continually to urge the Government to adopt measures of economy and retrenchment and at the same time to begrudge them the means of carrying out that policy. That, I think, sums up our attitude towards this Bill.
I would ask the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, whether, in his reply, he could indicate whether this new Ministry is to be regarded as a permanent one. He did not say that he regarded it as a temporary Ministry, and while I leave no doubt that he has confidence in it, we would rather not see it established as one of the many permanent Ministries.
I submit that this Ministry has a definite end to achieve and that when that end is achieved it should sink into decent oblivion.
Meanwhile we wish both the Ministry and the Minister every possible success.
4.28 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, those of us who speak from this side of the House will, I am sure, be in complete agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. In dealing with matters generally he left

543
out one or two points, and I propose to deal with one of them particularly. Members of your Lordships' House are at a relative disadvantage, because we are able only to hear the remarks of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading, and must read the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal in another place, though I suspect that the clarity and consistency of the statement we have just heard exceeds that which was heard in another place.
The noble Viscount at least made clear that the two main matters for consideration were, first, should the raw material department properly be set up and, secondly, is the method now proposed the right one? He laid emphasis on the fact that it would be advantageous that there should be one Minister responsible for an industry throughout, from the raw material to the finished article. I am sure there are many who will have misgivings as to the necessity for, or indeed the wisdom of, what is proposed in this Bill. The Lord Privy Seal, during the debate in another place, said:
"I now turn to the textile industry, which presents an especially difficult problem. The division between raw materials and manufacture is awkward …"
He further said:
"It would be quite impossible to tackle the range of raw materials …unless the procurement of both wool and cotton were under the person responsible for the whole negotiations across the wide field of raw material supplies."
The noble Viscount assured us that there would be the fullest consultation between the Ministry now proposed and such industries as may be affected. It is natural that there should be some doubt whether, before this proposal was decided upon, there was in fact the fullest consultation with the industries that were particularly concerned.
I do not now hold any responsible position in the wool textile industry—though I did so for many years—so I am not familiar with what official representations have been made. But perhaps I may be permitted to ask what are the assurances which can be given? The White Paper states:
…there will also be the fullest consultation at all times with the cotton and wool industries."
I hope the noble Viscount will offer a word of advice in the correct quarter to
544
the effect that these promises should be respected. I do not desire to enter into the field of political controversy, but I must say that we have not in the past had these very full consultations—which, had the Minister entered upon them, would have been very helpful to him in taking some of his decisions.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the Lord Privy Seal once again. He said in another place:
…the emphasis here is to underline that the Board of Trade is continuing its responsibility in the textile field."
Again, he said:
"It is not proposed that there should he any change at all—
that is, with regard to wool—
"because the liaison which hitherto was directed to the Board of Trade will come to me."
The noble Viscount has said in your Lordships' House that in the future there will be no lack of readiness by the Minister to make modifications on proper representations made to him. He was, of course, speaking of representations from the industry. My object in giving these quotations is to try to make the point that, far from there being a prospect of greater simplification, there will be around for fear that there will be more confusion and overlapping. There is much that could be said on this point, but there would be no purpose in my going into detail now. I would only add that what was said in another place gives cause for great misgivings. I had the experience, for four years, of being a Controller, and therefore a temporary civil servant in a Government Department: and I saw something of the relationship between the different Departments and the various questions involved in these matters of procurement and administration, as well as distribution and production.
Reference has been made to the fact that Lord Knollys, now in Washington, is a particularly happy personality to effect co-ordination. It is to be hoped so, for there will be many difficult negotiations there in the days ahead. I should like to add my own confidence in the proposal to place this Ministry in the hands of the present Lord Privy Seal, whose commercial experience should fit him to find a happy solution to the

545
many problems. I should like to make a further reference to wool, because this is probably one of the most difficult raw materials. I have already quoted several statements which have been made about it. One question which has been raised is whether it should be divorced from the Board of Trade. It is certain that the Dominions will never agree to procurement on a bulk scale; therefore procurement and distribution should be under the same Ministry, because the Board of Trade, whatever the conditions, peace or war, must he responsible for the larger part of the distribution.
I am now going to quote from the White Paper, the terminology of which is difficult to understand. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for my dealing with these matters in some detail, but I seek to be accurate. The White Paper says:
"The Board of Trade, as the appropriate production Department, will retain their responsibilities for all matters affecting the later stages of the cotton and wool industries, beginning with the distribution of the raw materials."
I would ask the noble Viscount, who is a thoroughly competent authority on the interpretation of the English language, what exactly that means. The wool textile industry is closely bound up with the Dominions, and so far as the United States are concerned, it is about the most "peppery" of all raw materials, as the noble Viscount will be fully aware from his visits to Washington, because of the very powerful wool lobby. If you join together the wool and cotton lobbies, you have the most powerful political force in the United States on Capitol Hill. To put it bluntly, "monkeying around" with wool by people who do not understand it is an extremely hazardous thing for inter-Dominion relations. How all these general assurances which I quoted at le beginning can be reconciled with the fact, for instance, that tobacco is to rema in entirely with the Board of Trade while the production and distribution of paper is to move entirely over to the Ministry of Materials, is confusing.
There were some remarkable precedents. I should have thought that there would be an assurance that wool, too, would be kept out, and that the position should not be further confused, because it war time wool is one of the
546
critical materials. In fact, I can assure the noble Viscount that nothing has beer, more harmful to the wool growing industry and the wool textile industry for the last six months than the "monkeying around" by Governments with threats and talk of stock piling and Government buying. The denying of those things and the changing of policy now superimposed on all this will only add to confusion. One of the features having the most harmful effects on, the wool growers' interests—that is, violent fluctuations in wool prices—might have been avoided.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I do not gather from the noble Lord's remarks that he is saying that this kind of fluctuation could have been a voided by some action of the British Government.
LORD BARNBY: I hope that I said "Governments," in the plural, wishing to include the United States Government, though I did not wish specifically to refer to them, because I have assumed that, if liaison and co-ordination was effected in the way that is suggested by this Bill through our representative in Washington, the British Government would assume sonic of the responsibility for the character of the operations in the recent past.
I must refer now to the cotton industry. Reference has been made to the difference between cotton and wool. In cotton there is statutory procurement, and in wool there has been nothing of the sort. We hope that situation will continue. I cannot lose the opportunity of saying this—and it is not my aim to bring in a matter of political controversy. In these matters of raw materials, the cotton industry affords a good example of the hazards arising through the absence of a cotton futures market. Cotton is in one of the most dangerous positions because it is subject to the price parity Act in the United States in a more marked manner, probably, than any other industrial raw material. I cannot refrain from reminding the noble Viscount that in spite of what has been said against profits, we read in the papers this morning that the Cotton Control Commission admit to a profit of nearly £1,000,000 a month for the last six months. That must be extremely distasteful to those who hold the noble Viscount's views as regards Gov-

547
ernment trading. But, distasteful and against their principles as it must be, to make a profit like that, I maintain that it is vitally necessary that a profit should be made, because only by making profits on the rise can a cushion be provided for the losses which occur on the fall—and losses must inevitably occur in most raw materials, as we have seen in the case of wool, which has fallen over 50 per cent. in the last three months.
Before I sit down I would ask the noble Viscount whether he can give us an assurance that at least there are no grounds for momentary doubts as to the overriding necessity for this scheme. In the Press the Lord Privy Seal has been credited with a statement to the effect that, because of the change in the international sphere, he had doubts whether there was need for proceeding with rearmament upon the scale which had previously been decided.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I happened to notice also that there was a strong correction by the Lord Privy Seal of that particular impression.
LORD BARNBY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his comment. There seemed to be some doubts about that.
LORD PAKENHAM:None whatever.
LORD BARNBY: I read it in the form of a reply to an imaginary supplementary question; the comments that I read gave me that impression. If I can have the noble Lord's assurance that there is no weakening of the determination of all Ministers, including the Lord Privy Seal, to prosecute rearmament with the greatest energy—of which, however, we should like to see some greater evidences—I shall be satisfied.
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I thank the House for the manner in which this debate has been conducted, and especially the noble Viscount who leads for the Opposition Bench for the broad spirit in which he dealt with the Bill, which he obviously, from his speech, did not feel that his friends could wholeheartedly support. Their kindness in endeavouring
548
to help us to-day in the quick passage of the measure so that we can go ahead in this matter at the earliest possible moment is very much appreciated and we are grateful to the noble Viscount for the consideration that has been shown. Before I come to deal with the speech of the noble Viscount, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rea, would let me deal with the point he made. We are thankful for the support of his friends on the Bill. The noble Lord asked the pertinent question, whether this authority for the new Ministry is likely to lead to a temporary or a permanent life. From my experience in political life, I should say that when a Ministry has been introduced and it has been thought that it will be not tremendously long lived, it has in fact existed for a very long time. But I think the dominant factor in regard to the point he raised is that, as we have stated in both Houses. the raw materials position is becoming so difficult throughout the world that we are concerned not only about its effect as an immediate factor upon the rearmament programme, but also about the method of dealing with it from the long-term point of view, in relation to those various developments in the world to which I referred when moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
I agree with Lord Bridgeman's opening remarks about the vital nature of raw materials, especially since in many cases they have become seriously scarce. I agree that it is implicit in the position and in the Government's proposals that we wish to secure some improvement in the procurement of raw materials. I agree, too, that it is exceedingly advisable that the machinery provided by this Bill should be flexible and should be, as we have tried to make the Bill, enabling. it is our intention that that shall be so. Therefore we can give the noble Viscount an assurance straight away—and perhaps this will cover some of the points made by the noble Lord who has just sat down —that we will regard it as essential to approach all these raw material problems with an open mind and with full discussion with the industries who have points to raise and suggestions to make. I have been in business myself and I know that we do not want discussion for discussion's sake. But if they have points to raise, we should be foolish if we did not approach the matter with an open mind

549
and with a sincere wish to make effective the major objectives of this Bill.
In one of the points made by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, the suggestion is implicit that some people may be in doubt whether we are not likely to falter in regard to the short-term requirements, which, of course, are very urgent and necessary to the rearmament programme, and whether our concern with raw materials is not based more upon the long-term programme. May I assure the House right away that there is no danger of that. In the words of the noble Viscount, we regard it as vital to the rearmament programme that there should be no "let up" in any way in the endeavours to increase and improve the procurement of raw materials, even if only for the purpose of fulfilling the rearmament programme that we have set out to achieve. We have always been conscious that perhaps the biggest possible handicap to be overcome in fulfilling that programme was the securing of an adequate quantity and variety of essential raw materials. There will be no "let up" whatsoever upon that matter.
In two places in his speech the noble Viscount had some very kind things to say about the Lord Privy Seal, and I fully agree with him that no better choice for the appointment could have been made. But while he thought that the choice of Minister was excellent, he was not so sure about the setting up of a Ministry. He was not able to agree with that at all. May I say that whatever efficient Minister was appointed to such a position, he would have certain rights to cavil against being given the job unless he had sufficient powers and separate staff and advisers behind him to enable him to do the job. I remember sitting for a considerable time in Opposition in another place when one or two very able men essayed to co-ordinate the defence Ministries. Whilst they themselves were excellent men, I think the job on the whole was a failure. And in such a system as this it seemed to us essential that not only should we choose the right Minister, but we should also see that he was properly equipped both in advice and in powers to do the job successfully.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Including the power to change the advisers if he finds they are not filling the bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I have no doubt that competent Ministers never refrain from taking the necessary action to achieve their policy, and I have no doubts in this case. The noble Viscount said that he was not convinced that the proposals we are making would necessarily improve supplies, and that success depends upon something more than machinery of the kind that we are proposing to set up under the Bill. I agree. Administrative machinery, even under statutory powers, will not itself secure success. In such a case as this success is dependent upon the loyalty and determination of all those who are concerned, and upon the adequate consultations to which reference has already been made. The noble Viscount asked whether we consulted industry in the early stages. I have not had time to consult my right honourable friend, the Minister of Materials to be, but I feel convinced that he would not have gone into such consultations at any rate until the principle that we sought to achieve had, been settled. From what I have heard in the last few weeks. I am quite sure that there has been very considerable consultation with industry, that consultations continue now, and also that there are one or two suggestions to which the Lord Privy Seal is giving consideration. I think I can say on his behalf that all suggestions of constructive purpose and. designed to make the machine work for the success of our objective will always receive his careful consideration.
LORD BARNBY: Perhaps the noble. Viscount would forgive this intervention. In the case of wool—an industry which has been generous in its support of Government requirements in the past—since we have the precedent of having been in toto or in part, under one or other Ministry, is it to be understood that, as a result of consultation with the industry, the Minister will not necessarily exclude the possibility of reposing the whole interest of that industry in one particular Department?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: It would be quite improper for me to attempt to prejudge what would be the attitude of the Lord Privy Seal upon that point. I think that this matter really arises on the question put to me by the noble Lord as to what the wording in the White Paper meant. I think that per-

551
haps the noble Lord was flattering me when he said that I was an authority on the English language. Certainly, I have had no university training.
LORD BARNBY: Will the noble Viscount forgive me? What I meant to stress was that his statements have always been particularly clear.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: That is the result of a very good elementary school education. As I was about to remark, the words in the White Paper dealing with the textile industries mean what they say. The noble Lord intimated that he did not really know what that was. The fact is that the Board of Trade take charge at the stage of distribution of the raw material and remain in charge of whatever is within their administrative capacity in that industry during the manufacturing process. The reason for the transfer of raw wool is because of its great importance in the Commonwealth and in the international field. I think that the Lord Privy Seal has made it clear in the White Paper, and in speeches in another place, that there will always be joint consultation.
LORD BARNBY: I appreciate that the noble Viscount is trying to elucidate this matter, but I must repeat that my difficulty arises because of the effects of the situation on the wool textile industry. I understand that the Board of Trade will retain their responsibility for all matters affecting the later stages of the cotton and wool industries, beginning with the distribution of raw material. Surely it cannot be the later stages if they begin with the raw material.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: In regard to production, does it not amount to this: that what is transferred to the Minister of Materials is procurement, and that there will be consultation at the next stage? In another place, if I remember rightly and I believe that this also is laid down in the White Paper—it was stated that under the Bill there is a duty on the Minister of Materials, when allocations are made, to see that the individual—not merely the trade, but the individual—gets his supply of raw material. Therefore, I think it was essential that that particular arrangement should be made for procurement, and that when matters have been dealt with by the Minister of Materials there should be
552
joint consultation and close liaison between the Minister of Materials and the Board of Trade.
Now, perhaps, I ought to return to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He will forgive me for leaving it in order to deal with the noble Lord's points. The noble Viscount asked me at what stage the Commonwealth countries were concerned. It would be impossible for us to establish a system in the Commonwealth under which they consulted us as to whether they set up a separate Ministry, or we consulted them as to whether we set up a separate Ministry. But the fact that the Minister has recognised the vital importance of getting co-operation, and of harnessing the resources of the Commonwealth in general in this crisis, means that he wants at all stages to consult the Commonwealth; and he is doing so. And the fact to which the noble Viscount referred, the calling of a Conference this autumn, is further proof of that. I am sure the noble Viscount can confidently assume, in view of the undertaking which the Minister has already given, that things will be very much improved.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Will the noble Viscount forgive me, but that was just my point? We attach so much importance to Commonwealth co-operation —as, indeed, does the noble Viscount also that we were anxious for an assurance that the Commonwealth countries have been brought in on this particular business at the earliest possible moment. The reason I mentioned the matter earlier was because I was not clear from what was said in another place, or in the White Paper, whether the Commonwealth countries had been brought in at the earliest possible moment, or only at a relatively later stage.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I am always rather careful in what I say, but I think it is fair to assume that they were brought in as early as possible. I do not want it to be assumed that we wanted them to interfere in the decision as to whether we should have another Department, any more than they would want us to interfere in any decision as to whether they would have another Department. Subject to that, I think the House may take it that they were consulted at the earliest possible moment.

553
The noble Viscount in the next part of his speech dealt with a number of matters to which I have already referred, and he also asked some pertinent questions. He asked how we propose to improve methods of procurement. He put a question, the effect of which was: if one is in business and is going out for new big business of this kind, what sort of staff should one look for and what sort of qualifications should they have? That is certainly a very pertinent question. I should say that, suitable persons should have foresight, knowledge of the commodity, knowledge of the market, and judgment as to the time and the price. Also, with these great technical qualifications, they should be men of the right personality, men capable of creating and maintaining good will. It will certainly be a very fortunate Minister who can always find the right man with all these qualifications wrapped up, as it were, in one parcel.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: You can find them in business.
Viscount, ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am sure that the Minister will do his best to find them. We have so rarely won approval from noble Lords opposite for appointments that we have made, that it is very heartening to us to find that our selection of the individual Minister it this case is approved by them. We are glad to he able to appoint a man with such business experience. As he put it, when speaking in another place, he has himself been a commercial traveller in the world. We think that in all probability his experience will prove of immense value, and will assist him in finding the right people for the job.
Another question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was whether the Bill implied that we contemplated extending public bulk purchase? He said that he hoped very much that private groups, as they are working to-day, would be left alone. I want to be very frank with the House upon this matter. The Bill, as I read it, is widely drawn in order that the Minister may give to policy that flexibility and open-mindedness to which the noble Viscount has referred. But I would say that there is no intention to use this Bill merely to satisfy someone's desire that X or Y ought to be within the sphere of bulk
554
purchase and that kind of thing. I think that what is meant is that we have to deal with this matter as we have been dealing with it in the last few years. And during the last few years, as the noble. Viscount will be well aware, quite a number of important commodities have been removed from the bulk purchase arrangements. I am sure that the open-minded and flexible qualities which have been mentioned may confidently be looked for, that the House will feel that we can be trusted in this matter, and that whatever is done, either by removing something from the public bulk purchase sphere or, possibly, in one or two instances, by extending bulk purchase, will be done in the public interest. That is how I see the matter at the present moment.
I think that, broadly speaking, I have dealt with the most essential points raises by the noble Viscount. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that I think perhaps he is a little unnecessarily fearful with regard to the future of the wool industry, with which, through long experience, he is so familiar and which he has served so well. Sometimes, those of us who are concerned in this particular type of government which noble Lords opposite do not like are spoken of as though we had no interest or experience in these particular business matters. But that is not wholly true. I myself am interested in textiles. Only last December, I wandered into the auction rooms in New Zealand and Australia in order to see what was going on, although I was there on a Ministerial visit. We approach these matters with some idea of what the ultimate public interest ought to be. We must all have been concerned with the way in which the market, although it was not a bulk purchase market, moved beyond all ordinary means of control, leading to heavy fluctuations. I can assure the noble Lord that, in a régime in which we want to have economic planning arid full employment, and at the same time want to fulfil our rearmament programme and keep up our export trade, it will always be our concern, so far as possible, to avoid these heavy fluctuations. What he said about making profit on a rising market in order to provide a cushion on a falling market is sound common sense, and I am glad that he recognises that that sometimes

555
happens. That was an important point which he made, and it is one which I hope he will allow me to remember sometimes in my public speeches outside the House.
We know well that this is a Bill which has excited some controversy. I hope your Lordships realise that we do not want to create another Department for the sake of creating a Department. What we want to see is somebody who has powers to deal with a very serious matter affecting our short-term and long-term positions. We believe that we are taking a sensible and sound step in that direction, and we are convinced that we shall have enough common sense to be flexible as we go along, to take the advice of the trade and, where necessary, to make such alterations in the general policy to be pursued as may be suitable to achieve what is the objective of this measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3aand passed.

DEATH DUTIES ON SERVICE MEN'S ESTATES
5.14 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will not reconsider once more the system whereby certain ranks are only partially relieved of death duties if killed under orders in war time, and make the relief total for all. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question was put down originally for last Wednesday, but for the convenience of your Lordships it was deferred until this afternoon. In the meantime, a discussion on this very matter was held in another place. I entirely concur with what was said by honourable Members on my side in another place, and I shall not repeat a word of that this afternoon. I am not a soldier and. therefore, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say some things about soldiers that they would not be so ready to say for themselves. Last time I discussed this question the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said he could not see why a millionaire should not pay estate duty if. being a sergeant or an officer, he was killed in action. It is only fair to the noble Lord to say that
556
he meant by the word "millionaire" the owner of a million pennies.
LORD PAKENHAM: Not consciously.
LORD SALTOUN: I have the noble Lord's remarks here. He said the first £5,000 was exempt that is a million pennies.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not want to hold up the noble Lord, but it is not a case of post hoc procter hoc. There is no question of my mistaking a millionaire for a gentleman who owns £5,000.
LORD SALTOUN: As the proposition affects people who have more than £5,000, I suggest that we drop discussing the millionaire. From what the noble Lord said then, it was shown that the general public escapes a small amount of taxation by reason of these death duties. It was shown that most officers are ignorant of the law in this matter. They think that the relief does not apply to them. The noble Lord inquired how this point could be drawn to their attention and asked me to write to him. I wrote to him and asked whether, when commissions were offered to officers and promotions offered to sergeants, they were definitely informed that the change of status would mean the attraction of death duties if they were killed in action. The noble Lord referred this to the proper quarter, but no answer has been received by me. We can take it that they are not so informed. If they were, I am certain I should have received an answer to my question.
This is a very serious matter. In ordinary business, to offer a man promotion and at the same time to conceal so fundamental a disadvantage would be considered everywhere an act of bad faith. I do not think there is any doubt about that. In this case it is worse, because in ordinary business the man who discovers the truth can resign his position, but an officer cannot return to the ranks or resign his commission, certainly not in time of war, and he always has to ask leave. The matter goes further, because in contracts of insurance which affect payments of money on death a man is legally bound to disclose any material facts which affect the contract. These contracts demand what is called uberrima fides—that is, the greatest possible degree of good faith.

557
To the best of my knowledge and ability, I have shown what are the business standards in this matter and what are the legal standards. Unless the Government are prepared to meet me, I propose that all ranks from sergeants upwards to whom a specific disclosure was not made when promotion was offered to them should be exempt from estate duty. I do not think it is compatible with the credit of the country that people should be caught in what appears to be a trap, though nobody had the smallest intention of laying one. My second reason for claiming consideration of this matter is that it involves what I have always felt to be an important principle. All orders given to soldiers derive ultimately from the authority of the Cabinet and of Parliament, and the law regulating death duties and the persons on whom they shall be levied is derived from exactly the same source. I say it is not proper that the authority which orders a man to what must be his death should derive any advantage or financial profit from that death. I am not suggesting that the left hand knows what the right hand does; all I say is that both hands should not depend from the same pair of shoulders. King David got into trouble because the left hand did know what the tight hand was doing, and he was pilloried through the whole of the Middle Ages. Every Book of Hours has a picture of David and his crime. The Emperor Nero had the pleasant habit of ordering people to die and demanding estate duties, but there are two points about Nero—his duty was limited to 15 per cent., and the people who were condemned to their deaths were not soldiers but senators. Frankly, I think that the system of Nero was more merciful than the system of the present Government.
My Lords, we do not change the nature of a list of killed and wounded men by calling it a "Roll of Honour." A man is none the less dead, even though he is said to have; "made the great sacrifice." The only thing we can do for the dead is to remember them, and to see that their dependants do not suffer more than can be possibly avoided, especially from financial difficulties; and most certainly we should not make money out of them. As for remembering them, I have made it my duty ever since I have been a member of your Lordships' House to go and
558
look at our records and see who it is that I have to remember. I could wish that even now, even if our new Memorial is not embellished, there were a manuscript list of the people we lost in this war, in order that one might know who it is one has to recall before they are entirely forgotten.
There is one feature of war which I feel I must emphasise, as it bears importantly on this matter—namely, that, however we disguise it, war is fought at a higher moral level than most of us touch in our ordinary civilian lives. I will give two short examples. A subaltern in Korea is sent on a patrol. He knows perfectly well that his chances of returning are very small. Perhaps an observer, a listener, goes to some advantage post to see how he gets on. He proceeds up the valley and comes under tire from three sides; he is wounded, and he has several men wounded. It is obvious that he cannot learn any more. He takes stock of the situation, sends back his report, his wounded, and all of his patrol but one man, whom he keeps back to help him work the Bren, and with the assistance of this man he covers the retreat of his patrol. Finally, unable: to move himself, he sends this man back and keeps him covered with the Brea until the sound of the Bren ceases altogether.
That is a common example of the kind of thing that happens in war. I am bound to say that when I consider the issues of character, and the moral qualities involved, I feel my own stature diminish. The officer in command of the Gloucesters took his decision. It was not a simple decision by any means, but every one of us recognises the height of the spiritual level at which it was taken. I am glad to learn that he is alive, but had the decision cost him his life, the duties his estate would have had to pay would have been increased by the reduced expectation of life of men of his advanced age. It is only when the bill comes in that a woman realises the value put upon the: possession of a husband whose sense of duty is greater than his care or thought; for his family or for his life. As I go home, I travel along the east coast of Scotland, and I pass innumerable small properties which were once the possession of families who had lived there in modest comfort for generations. In the wars of the last two generations, two generations have been killed and these places are

559
desolate. That is the true war memorial of Britain. I think it is foolish to keep up the fiction that these people gave their lives for us, if we write them down and by our treatment of them proclaim them fools.
When the historian of our Army, Sir John Fortesque, wished to ascertain whether any troops had been routed or gradually forced to retire, one of his tests was to compare the casualties of the officers and the men. One in thirty was normal; one in twenty gave rise to questions; and more than that was very serious. To-day I think one in ten is the average in the Army; and when anything goes wrong the Army simply "eats" officers, especially subalterns. Moreover, there is the further point that the pressure of war is so great that many men are thrown away through orders which should never have been given. Every one of us can remember instances of that, some large and some small. Since these deaths were unnecessary, and we cannot give back life, we certainly should not make any charge for them.
I have been implored by people outside this House, who feel shame that they are supposed to get off a small quantity of taxation by reason of these sums and the noble Lord has said that they are very small sums that are raised from the estates of people who are killed in war—to press this matter. I share their shame, and I beg the noble Lord to put aside his brief and to be our advocate, and see whether we cannot get something done. We have the fact that a man who, I believe, is certain to be a Minister if there is a change of Government, has spoken on our side in another place. But I would rather that this matter were dealt with now by the Government which the noble Lord represents in this House.
5.27 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken feels very strongly about this question, and I am sure he will allow me to say that he possesses many of the qualities that bring about reforms: he has the passion and the single-minded sincerity. But, if he will allow me to say so, when he talked about the trap into which these officers were led, and said that the alleged policy maintained in our far distant past proclaimed them fools, he used certain ex-
560
pressions which, to put it mildly, I regard as very much exaggerated. I will not attempt to use as severe language in reply, because I do not want to cause offence, either to the noble Lord—that goes without saying—or to others who, like him, may feel deeply about this question and who may themselves have suffered. But I must ask the noble Lord to believe (and I speak as someone whose family would be very much better off if the noble Lord's provisions were in force) that those who differ from him are just as sincere as he is in relation to this question.
In the debate in another place my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reiterated in somewhat greater detail the view which I indicated in your Lordships' House last March. I would say that I have personally taken up the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After this mature consideration, the Government still take the view—and I question whether there are many people in the country as a whole who differ from them, although it is a matter of opinion that the present estate duty law deals fairly with the estates of officers and senior N.C.O.'s who die or are killed on active service. I am afraid that I cannot hold out to the noble Lord any hope of a change of policy. I need hardly say that I cannot throw away my brief, as he invited me to do; that is hardly what I am here for, and it would not be of much value to the noble Lord, or to the House, if I began operating in that fashion.
Under the Stamp Act, 1815 (I recall these facts not for the noble Lord, who is aware of them, but for the record, and for those who may be following our debate), the lower ranks of the Services—broadly speaking, all below the rank of sergeant are completely exempted if they die in the service of His Majesty, as the honourable Member, Mr. Pickthorn, said in another place, in peace or war, in the cold war, or in other circumstances. The position of officers and senior N.C.O.'s is governed at the present time by Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1924. That applies to officers and senior N.C.O.'s who die on active service, or what is considered the equivalent by the Treasury. Unless pressed, I will not go in any length into the question of what constitutes active service, but I would remind the House that from the moment mobilisation is ordered, every member of

561
the Forces is on active service against an enemy and therefore, his estate would get relief, ever if he died of illness in this country. I understand that in the First World War an officer fell from the window of an hotel, and the Law Officers advised that his estate was entitled to the relief. So much for the meaning of "active service."
As regards the exemption for these officers and senior N.C.O.'s, I would again remind the House that the first £5,000 of estate is totally exempt from estate duty, and that or everything over £5,000 there is further relief, which varies according to the man's expectation of life. I am not sure whether, in our brief exchanges last time, this fact was brought out—I think I did touch upon the point, but perhaps not adequately. The exemption varies from over 50 per cent. of the duty at age forty-six to over 70 per cent. of the duty at twenty-two. Therefore, if we take the else of the young officer—in which all are so vitally interested—his estate would get relief of 70 per cent. of the duty over £5,000, and be exempted for £5,000. That is not total exemption, but it is a very considerable exemption, and we must not dismiss it lightly. It gives the greatest relief to the widows of those who die youngest and to the largest estates.
The noble Lord suggested that all ranks should have complete exemption. I do not think anybody's heart can remain entirely untouched by the language that he used in this matter. I do not suggest that he has no case at all, but I should like to draw his attention to the position of all those outside the Services in dangerous occupations, often of vital importance to the State, who get no relief from estate duty at all, whether they be in the higher or the lower grades. I need only mention coal mining or the Merchant Navy. One could point also to special cases, such as that of a civil pilot on the Berlin Air-Lift, and other cases of that nature. I know that there will always be a feeling—in which to a considerable extent I share—that the man killed in action hold: a unique place in the minds of us all; but, of course, active service conditions do not apply only to those killed in action. As I pointed out earlier, it applies to somebody who falls out of a window during war time.
LORD SALTOUN: I should be delighted to accept the noble Lord's limitation.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am not making any offer to the noble Lord. I was just explaining the present situation and relating it to his own claim for those who were killed in action in the front line. Speaking only for myself, I agree that where the noble Lord makes his most appealing point is when he argues that if a man is ordered to embark upon some dangerous course, then it seems very hard to place a duty on his estate if he is killed. I feel that that is the strongest of the noble Lord's points.
Again speaking only for myself—because I am not sure whether it was put in this way in another place—in relation to the point, I would ask the noble Lord whether he considers the volunteer as somebody who has been ordered. If somebody volunteers for active service and goes to the front, I do not know when one can regard him as somebody "ordered," in the noble Lord's sense. Therefore, one is bound to ask whether he is applying his proposal mainly to conscripts. The problem then arises whether it is to be related only to soldiers or to those ordered into dangerous occupations. In war time, people are directed hither and hither, and if the noble Lord is to be logical, to my mind he would have to extend it to everybody who was ordered to work in industry and was bombed to his death. Such a man is ordered into a dangerous occupation and is killed while under orders. So we could go on elaborating. Yet one inevitably comes back to the starting point. It is very difficult to know where to draw the line, and one can only say that the custom of this country has decided to give exemption up to £5,000 and give very substantial exemption in the case of a young man and to those whose estates are larger than £5,000.
I cannot help recalling, for the benefit of the noble Lord, what was said by Sir John Anderson, his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I may not unfairly describe him so. He said in 1944:
"If you leave out of account, as I believe you must. the sharp contrast between the position of the common soldier and the position of the officer, I believe that the treatment given under the existing law to the estate of the deceased officer is as fair as it could possibly be made."

563
There is a kind of condition attached to that, and the noble Lord may wonder, as I do, what was in Sir John Anderson's mind. The noble Lord referred to an eminent Conservative who is likely to receive office if and when the Conservative Party come to power, and I can only assume that he is referring to Mr. Ralph Assheton. If the right honourable Member is to be quoted, let us quote him when he was himself in a responsible position and not, as now, in a comparatively irresponsible position awaiting office. In 1944, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he was good enough to explain what Sir John Anderson had in mind. In his responsible capacity he spoke as follows of Sir John Anderson's speech:
"I was not here during the whole of the Chancellor's speech but I am quite certain that if I had been I should have heard him say that the logical remedy for this anomaly—I know he regards it as an anomaly—would he to repeal the exemption of the common soldier."
That was the view of the Conservative Party, as pronounced by Sir John Anderson and interpreted by Mr. Ralph Assheton, who then had the power and the responsiblity for dealing with this matter. I am not making a debating point, but I am explaining that that is the line which the Conservative Party have taken in the past. I am not coming here this afternoon to say that they are wrong; I am saying that this is where the broad wisdom of the country has tended to reach an agreed conclusion, irrespective of Party.
There, I am afraid, we must leave this matter for this afternoon. I would refer to only one other point, which the noble Lord mentioned to-day and on a previous occasion, and with which he has dealt in correspondence. He has asked me—and I again put it to the House to-day—whether the Services inform a young man below the rank of sergeant, or the equivalent, to whom they are offering a commission, that by accepting a commission he is completely altering his position with regard to death duties. I have made inquiries, and I find that they do not give this information. I seriously ask whether noble Lords really desire a step of that kind to be taken.
LORD SALTOUN: Hear, hear.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord does desire it. But I do not think such information would be regarded at all favourably by young men at the moment when they are being given a commission. Warnings about their position in regard to death duties would strike a very jarring note. Indeed, it might be regarded as a poor type of official joke. I am offering my opinion, and the opinion of some of those who have been concerned with this problem. Whilst I am not going to say that in no circumstances can this particular point be looked at again—it is obviously a matter for the Service Departments—I do not for a moment wish to suggest that I feel that a change is either likely or desirable. It is, however, something on which opinions may be expressed without bringing the Chancellor of the Exchequer into it either way. I conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, and by paying a tribute to his sincerity. I hope that he for his part will recognise the sincerity of those who differ from him.
5.41 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in regard to the expectedly disappointing answer which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has just made. He said that he thought that any intimation to a candidate for a commission that he would be put in a worse position in regard to death duties by accepting a commission would be taken as a kind of bad official joke. I, for one, profoundly disagree. I do not know how much experience the noble Lord has had in that particular field, but I happen to have had a great deal of experience in selecting or nominating men for consideration for commissions; and I have found that, unfortunately, the economic consequences of taking a commission are one of the factors that enter very deeply into the decision of a man as to whether or not he should accept the honour. One of those economic consequences arises from the fact that when you commit yourself to battle you do not know whether or not you will survive; and one of your considerations from that aspect must surely be, in what position your wife and family will be placed if you do not. So far from being taken as a bad official joke—and most official jokes are bad—it would have been taken as a perfectly proper word of warning if a

565
word were said to a man on the economic side which would assist him in coming to a decision.
The noble Lord then said that Sir John Anderson and Mr. Ralph Assheton had taken a different line in 1944. But the point is that that was in 1944. It would have been a very difficult matter to alter the law then. By that time large numbers of people had been killed. I should base thought that, unless the legislation was made retrospective, and the death duties that had been paid on the estates of these men who had been killed were handed back to their heirs, to introduce this reform in 1944 would have been an almost impossible task.
The noble Lord spoke about officers, warrant officers and senior N.C.O.'s having the benefit of a reduction based upon the expectation of life, whereby the younger men would get a bigger reduction. But he did not make any attempt throughout his speech to deal with the fact that there does exist this glaring anomaly between those who are exempt and those who arc subjected to some graduated benefit. That is the gist of the objection which exists at present, from our point of view. The moment has surely come when we might reconsider this matter. I cannot help feeling that there is something singularly unattractive in the idea of the State, or the Government, or the Treasury, whichever you like to call it, receiving money from the estate of a man who has been killed in the service of his country. If the noble Lord says he thinks that "active service" has become a wide expression in the course of time, so be it. We might perhaps reduce it to something like "killed by enemy action." I am only suggesting that on the spur of the moment: I do not commit myself to it; it might be that some narrower definition of the circumstances in which a man or woman met with his or her death would be right. I agree that "active service" is a very wide term, with the introduction of total war, especially war in the air. But sonic attempt should be made to remove this long-standing, though, I hope, by no means permanent, anomaly. We on this side feel very strongly; and I am sorry that the noble Lord has only produced or reproduced —the answer recently given in another place, which can give little satisfaction
566
to those concerned with the welfare of the services.
5.46 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the words which have just fallen from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to throw away his brief. Unfortunately, Lord Pakenham was unable to comply with that request. I am certain shat had he done so he would have given a very different answer. He gave us a perfectly logical and a perfect Treasury answer, one with which it is very difficult to quarrel. But surely this is not a subject for logic. If we had been talking of some hundred years ago, when officers bought their commissions and the distinction between officers and other ranks was very sharp, there would have been much to say for the argument put forward by Lord Pakenham. But those days have gone, and we have been moving gradually towards equality of sacrifice between officers and other ranks.
I have no idea of the financial sum involved, or what the loss to the Treasury would be if Lord Saltoun's request were complied with. But I do know that very great satisfaction would be felt throughout the Forces, and a great sense of injustice would he removed, if that request were complied with. I suppose that a political tag which is heard as often as any in this House is that "Not only should justice be done, but justice Should be seen to be done." Whether justice is done in this case I am not prepared to argue. But I know that there is a sense of injustice in the Forces that there should be this sharp distinction. I am sure that the financial loss to the Treasury would be very small indeed if Lord Saltoun's request were complied with. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will bring pressure to bear on his right honourable friend to see what can be done to alleviate this very real sense of injustice.
5.49 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am placed in some difficulty because I understand that I am precluded from replying further, and in any event I do not wish to detain the House. But it seems discourteous not to say ore word after what has just been said. With the leave of the House, therefore, perhaps I may say that the suggestion of the noble Marquess that

567
information concerning the economic implications should be given to young men when they are being offered a commission is one which can be put forward and looked into again—though I do not want to suggest that any decision other than that which I have mentioned to-day is likely to be announced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I know, reviewed the whole matter very carefully this year, and it would be wrong for me to suggest that he is likely to depart from the policy which I have explained. As to the noble Marquess's point concerning certain decisions made in 1944, I can only indicate to the best of my understanding (Mr. Ralph Assheton is, happily, alive and with us, and can interpret his own statements) the view which he expressed on behalf of the Conservative Party when they last had any responsibility: that if any change was to be made, it should be made in the other direction—what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, would regard as the wrong direction.
THE MARQUESS OF READING:Did the noble Lord read Mr. Assheton's speech in the debate the other day?
LORD PAKENHAM:Yes, I have it here.
LORD SALTOUN:My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have supported me in my Question, and I apologise to the noble Lord opposite if my attention was momentarily distracted. I was shocked for a moment when he explained the very ample relief granted to the subaltern who has no estate and the very much more limited relief granted to his commanding officer, who has an estate and a family.

CONFERRING OF HONOURS ON COMBATANTS
5.51 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will not consider a change of system in order greatly to diminish delay and to give additional certainty in the conferring of honours on combatants in war time. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may not be surprised to know that in the First World War, when he served with the Red Cross, the late Lord Donoughmore got as near the front as
568
he could, and that the French always used to supply him with a very good woman driver who, as he did, always tried to get as near the front as possible. Unfortunately, it happened that one day this poor woman was shot, and she died that night in hospital. Before she died, a French General standing by her bedside said to her: "Madame, vous êtes blessée pour la patrie," and he pinned the Legion of Honour on her breast. She died happy. That is the way I feel that honours ought to be granted. I realise that the other point of view is held in this country; that honours ought to be very carefully scrutinised before they are granted. I realise that that argument also has great force, and I entirely agree with it. But I should like to add that honours, once granted honestly, should never be withdrawn.
Let me take the case of one young man I know who, after being wounded and getting two Military Crosses—the citation for the first was one of the most extraordinary I have ever seen at last received from his General the D.S.O. ribbon with a letter saying: "My dear boy, at last you have got what you deserve. You will put this up at once." He was cited in orders as having received the D.S.O., and he put it up. Nine months later he read in orders that he had received only the Military Cross, and he was told to take down the D.S.O. Your Lordships will not be surprised at the consequence of that. The next thing was a letter asking to resign all his honours. Bearing in mind this story, which I had only just heard, I went to dine with a colonel who had commanded a battalion in Burma during the last war. He had just received a letter from one of his officers saying: "My dear Colonel, you will remember that I was present at a divisional parade in Burma when the divisional commander conferred on me the D.S.O. My right to wear this is now being challenged, and I have been told to take it down." That sort of thing is something that should never be allowed to occur.
I suggest that one of the best ways out of this business is to give officers commanding-in-chief on any front a certain number of honours which they themselves can confer, and which can be kept as a reserve for cases of this kind. I also wish to suggest that the greatest expedition should be used in assessing the actions of the Army, Navy and Air

569
Force and in assigning awards, because I believe teat, during the last war, in a large proportion of cases in which honours were granted the persons who received them were dead before knowing that they had won hem. I think those two aspects are most important. That is the foundation of my second Question this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have considered these points which have been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. His Majesty's Government are not aware that there are any good reasons for recommencing any change in the system relating to the grants of honours for combatants in war time. I am afraid that some delays are unavoidable, as in the course of operations recommendations which reach a Commander-in-Chief have to be co-ordinated and compared. However, I am sure your Lordships will be interested to learn that the number of immediate awards which may be made by the Commander-in-Chief, British Commonwcalth Occupation Forces in Japan, to United Kingdom Army Forces has recently, been increased. The noble Lord will appreciate that, where that special authority is given, there can be no question of any variation or withdrawal.
I will, of course, bring to the attention of the authorities the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, but it would be Wrong for me to go further than to say that we have given this power to the Commander-in-Chief in the Far East, that we have increased the number of awards which are at his disposal, and that we will do all we can to expedite the consideration of such further recommendations as he or similar Commandersin-Chief may feel they must send home to be considered.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the hour has arrived for a Royal Commission. I suggest that it would be convenient that we should now adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure
House resumed.

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

New Streets,

Coal Industry,

Ministry of Materials.

Uttoxeter Urban District Council.

Dee and Clwydd River Board.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CONFERRING OF HONOURS ON COMBATANTS
6.13 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, before the House adjourned during pleasure we were dealing with the second Question asked by my noble friend, Lord Saltoun, and I thought your Lordships were aware, seeing that my noble friend, Lord Onslow, had risen in his place, that we on this side of the House had something more to say on the matter. I am sorry to find that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, cannot have seen that my noble friend rose in his place, otherwise I am certain he would have remained. As it is, I hope that some noble Lord opposite will be able to report to the noble Viscount the remarks which my noble friend and I are going to make, and that he will give his attention to them.
My Lords, if I understand this matter at all, the reply which was given to my noble friend by the noble Viscount did, so to speak, represent the technical position, and I am sure that we are all glad to hear that commanders in the Korean theatre of war have been given proper discretion for immediate awards. With such knowledge as I have, I think that the trouble to which the noble Lord referred, and which I know exists, lies much more in the handling of immediate awards than the consideration of more important honours which have to he referred to London. There is no doubt that in the last war a good deal of trouble and of hard feeling arose because, shall we say, of careless methods of administering immediate awards. The point which my noble friend, made was a perfectly good one, and I think it all the

571
more important because we must never forget that this question of honours and awards concerns the Royal prerogative which is not a matter we should discuss in this House except, perhaps, to say this. When an officer, particularly a young officer, is told in good faith by his superior officer to put up the ribbon of a decoration which everyone believes he has earned, it is a matter of serious moral damage to him—damage which may last his whole life as well as affecting his career in his regiment—if he is told subsequently to take the ribbon down. Those of us who have been Regular soldiers—as, your Lordships know, I have been—perhaps feel that sort of thing a great deal more acutely than those who have not served in the Forces. The point I make is that where there has been a genuine mistake, and the ribbon of a medal has been put up in good faith—and it means so much to the career in the Army of the young man who has put up the medal ribbon—arrangements should be made for advising His Majesty, on the proper occasion, to make good the damage and avoid sacrificing the self-respect of the officer or man concerned.
6.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, what I was going to ask the noble Viscount opposite (who is no longer opposite) was this: would he make inquiries concerning the way medals were given in the last war? I know for a fact that for the sake of simplicity of administration in quarters behind the line, it was advisable that you should write out your citation for a decoration in a certain form of words. I discovered that personally, from a brother commanding officer who had been in the Military Secretary's Office shortly before he took over command of his regiment. He, I discovered, was getting his decorations through with more facility than I was. I do not say that my soldiers were better than his, but they were at least as good, and we were not getting what we considered our fair quota of decorations. Talking to him one day I mentioned this, and he said: "Oh, I can explain that. I was in the Military Secretary's Department, and I learned there that there is a form of words which you should use for getting such and such decorations." He told me the form of words, and although I do not say that
572
after that we received everything we wanted, we certainly got a good many more decorations than we had had in the past. I think this is a matter which should be looked into. These decorations should be given for the deeds in respect of which they were recommended, not simply on the authority of someone in an office, who has no personal knowledge of the true drama of the situations in which the decorations were earned. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that that is a matter which should be looked into.
6.19 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend found it necessary to retire as he did, but the reason for his action was solely that he had to go to a Cabinet Committee meeting which the Prime Minister is attending. I, myself, as your Lordships will remember, was rather anxious to break into the debate at a quarter-to-six. That would have meant that the whole of this Question would have been dealt with after the Royal Commission. But there seemed to be a desire that we should try to get through the business on the Order Paper before six o'clock, and the difficulty, I think, has arisen from that fact. I am sorry for what has happened, and I will undertake to bring fully to the notice of my noble friend the views which have been expressed by the noble Lords opposite. I can assure them that he will look at them very sympathetically indeed.

SAINT BENET GRACECHURCH BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.