Lords Sitting of 26 July 1951

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

MESSAGE FROM THE KING
2.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from His Majesty the King, signed with his own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address informing me of the deep sorrow and indignation with which you have learned of the assassination of His Majesty King Abdullah of the Jordan. I fully share the sentiments to which your Address gives expression, and I will take care to convey to the Government of the Jordan the sense of abhorrence which, in common with myself, you feel for this detestable crime, and your sympathy with the family of His late Majesty, with the Government and with the people of the Jordan."

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 Bills appointed for consideration this day through their remaining stages.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I feel inclined to protest at the way in which, by means of this Motion, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill is being hurried through. We had the Committee stage only the day before yesterday; we have the Report stage to-day, and there are a great many Amendments. I very much doubt whether the Bill will be in the shape in which we should like to see it. We shall not have time to consider any further Amendments at all.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRI BUTION OF SEATS) (CARDIFF, BARRY AND MONMOUTH) ORDER, 1951
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. The Order will give effect, without modification, to the recommendation made by the Boundary Commission for Wales in their Report submitted to the Secretary of State on July 6, 1951, under Section 2 (3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, and now laid before Parliament in accordance with Section 2 (5) of that Act. The Order adjusts the boundaries of the three Cardiff constituencies and of the adjacent county constituencies of Barry and Monmouth, to conform with the city boundaries as constituted by the Cardiff Extension Act, 1950. In accordance with the proviso to Section 3 (6) of the Act of 1949, this Order will not affect any Parliamentary election until the General Election following its coming into force. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Cardiff, Barry and Monmouth) Order laid before the House on Tuesday the 17th instant, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINERAL WORKINGS BILL
2.39 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 6 [Application to land held by operators on 1st July, 1948]:
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, after ("is") insert ("or is to be").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("from") to end of line 36 and insert ("payments by the lessee under the lease").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the two drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, at end insert ("or otherwise recovered by the lessee in accordance with those provisions")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a matter which was raised and discussed on the Committee stage. I do not think I need to add to what was said then. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, at end insert ("or
(c) under any enactment other than the principal Act, in consequence of the imposition of ary prohibition or restriction in respect of that development").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out from ("fund") to ("the") in line 21 and insert ("not exceeding").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, at end insert—
("(5) In calculating the amount of any such compensation as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section, no account shall be taken of the provisions of this section; but subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any ironstone in respect of which a contribution has become payable by virtue of the said subsection (4)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SAMUELmoved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
land held on charitable trusts
".—(1) The Minister may by order direct that sections five and six of this Act shall not apply to ironstone specified in the order, being ironstone an interest in which is held on the date of the order on charitable trusts or for charitable purposes.
(2) No order shall be made under this section after the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
(3) An order under this section may be made so as to take effect from the date of the order or from such earlier date as may be specified therein."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is one of substance, but it applies to a very limited class of cases. As your Lordships are aware, for the purposes of the law, the tern "charities includes a large number of institutions which are other than charitable in the ordinary sense of that word. I refer especially to educational institutions, including the universities and colleges. Some of these who are estate owners own ironstone properties which come within the scope of this Bill. Representations have been made that, in certain cases, the levies to be imposed will involve a very considerable burden upon these charities. The law has frequently—in fact, as a general rule—exempted charities from taxation and from levies analogous to taxation, as, for example, under the Income Tax Acts, the Death Duties Acts, the War Damage Acts and I believe there are others. Therefore, that principle has been long recognised and approved by Parliament. Representations have been made to the Minister with respect to these particular levies, and he has agreed that in certain cases hardship may be imposed. The principle of this Amendment has been approved by him, and I now move it on behalf of the interests specially concerned, and with the assent of the Minister, with whom I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter.
However, the Minister has made the point that merely to insert a simple Amendment exempting charities from the scope of the Bill might be open to objection, because there are cases in which it is possible that even these charities may have been at fault. There may be some who, it could be shown, have had a bad record in this matter, so far as restoration is concerned; in the past they may

1303
have leased land for ironstone working, and been content to draw a high royalty, and, at the end, have abandoned the land as derelict. In such cases, they ought not to be exempt from the charge for restoration. Even charities may cover a multitude of sins. It is therefore thought to be necessary to allow machinery for some discrimination, where discrimination is needed; and, in accordance with the general procedure or general machinery of the Bill, that would naturally fall to be done by orders to be made by the Minister.
This matter has been brought to my notice very late in the day, not through my fault, but owing to some misunderstandings or delays between the parties concerned and the Ministry. As a result, it was only yesterday that I had an opportunity of studying what was proposed. It occurs to me that objection may be raised to the Amendment—indeed, I am inclined to raise objection to it myself—on the grounds that it confers an uncontrolled power on the Minister. Some time ago I myself introduced a Liberties of the Subject Bill, and protested against the tendency of modern legislation to allow unfettered powers of discrimination to a Minister on matters which could not properly be referred to courts of law but which, nevertheless, should be controlled in other ways. When this point was put to the Ministry they thought that it could be met by including the power to make orders under this new clause among the many powers contained in Clause 36 of this Bill. Clause 36 requires regulations made under the Bill to be submitted to Parliament and to be open to annulment by vote of either House. If any individual has a grievance against an order made by the Minister he at any rate has recourse to someone—namely, Parliament—by a recognised procedure. Therefore, I shall move a consequential Amendment, very short and simple, to Clause 36, the effect of which will be merely to include in the procedure already approved by the House other orders made under this Bill. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Samuel.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble
1304
Viscount is right in saying that this Amendment was received only yesterday. And, in consequence, neither he nor I has had adequate time to consider it in detail. It gives the Minister a discretionary power and, because it does that, the Minister is inclined to feel that he can accept it. Your Lordships are aware that most charities are exempt, or partly exempt, from taxation and from certain other levies, and the Minister is prepared to accept this discretionary power, under which he will be able to grant exemption to certain ironstone land owned by charity. This should not be taken to imply that the Minister will necessarily exempt all the ironstone land owned by any charity. On that understanding I am able to accept this Amendment. As regards the consequential Amendment to Clause 36, if your Lordships are prepared to accept the Amendment now before us, I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in the later clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Payments to operators from the fund]:
LORD MACDONALD 0F GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, after ("be") insert ("or have been")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is preparatory to the new clause to be moved after Clause 31. The effect of the new clause is to provide for the appointment of an Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Determination of rates of payments to operators]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to give an ironstone operator who is not satisfied with the Minister's provisional determination of a rate of payment the right to a personal hearing. This matter was raised

1305
several times during the Committee stage and the Amendment is designed to achieve that object. An indication of the terms of the Amendment was given in your Lordciships' House by myself and my remarks were responded to by noble Lords. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, leave out line 18 and insert—
("(b) if at the time of making such representations the applicant informs the Minister that he wishes to be heard upon them, the Minister shall afford to him").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. This removes the mere discretion of the Minister and substitutes a right of the person who considers himself aggrieved. That is a very considerable difference in principle which we gladly and gratefully accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, leave out from ("by") to ("or") in line 21 and insert ("the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
One Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Compulsory acquisition for purposes of agriculture]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to a promise I made to the noble Marquess to give him more than he asked for. It is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaensygor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.46 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGORmoved, after Clause 26, to insert the following new clause:
Modification of payments in lieu of restoration under ironstone leases
".—(1) Where any ironstone comprised in a mining lease made before the commencement of this Act is worked by opencast operations in accordance with planning permission, then if—

(a) the lease contains provisions requiring or enabling the lessee to pay a specified sum in
1306
lieu of compliance with any obligation relating to the restoration of the land, or by way of liquidated damages for breach of such an obligation, or to return the land after restoration or upon payment of a specified sum in lieu of restoration; and

(b) the planning permission is subject to conditions regulating the manner in which the land is to be dealt with after working, but not requiring its restoration in the mariner or to the extent specified in the lease, and those conditions are complied with,

the sum payable by the lessee as aforesaid under the lease in respect of that land shall he reduced to such extent (if any) as may be just having, regard to any benefit accruing to the lessor or any person deriving title from him in consequence of compliance with the said conditions.
(2) Any question whether any and if so what reduction falls to be made under this section in the sums payable under a lease shall, in default of agreement between the parties, be determined by arbitration.
(3) For the purpose of calculating the amount of any reduction under this section the value of any benefit accruing in consequence of compliance with any conditions shall he ascertained by reference to prices current at the time when the sum to be reduced is payable; but if that sum is less than the sum which would represent the value of the land at that time if it were restored in accordance with the provisions of the lease, the value of the benefit accruing as aforesaid shall be reduced proportionately.
(4) The provisions of this section shall apply in relation to a conveyance of ironstone or a conveyance of land subject to an exception of ironstone as they apply in relation to a mining lease, and as if for references to the lessee and to the lessor there were substituted respectively references to the person entitled to the ironstone by virtue of the conveyance or exception and to the person entitled to the surface of the land."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very technical Amendment, and I ought to apologise for so big an Amendment being introduced so late, but there is a good reason—namely that we have had to conduct long discussions with representatives of land owners and operators, and that has taken quite a time. I am sorry we were unable to place the Amendment on the Order Paper earlier but it is an agreed Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we know there have been discussions going on for some time on this matter, but I am bound to say that the appearance of this Amendment for the first time at this stage, which is linked with

1307
the Third Reading, cannot be regarded as a very satisfactory method of dealing with a clause of this kind and length. The noble Lord says it is an agreed Amendment, but I should like to know with whom it is agreed. There are still one or two reservations in the minds of people who understand the purport of this clause—amongst whom I do not class myself. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider two Amendments to the proposed new subsection (3) and give sonic indication that they will be dealt with. The first is a small one. Where it says:
"… shall be ascertained by reference to prices current at the time",
we should like to see:
…to prices of land current at the time"
The second point is that we do not like the drafting of the last three subsection (3). It says:
"…if it were restored in accordance with the provisions of the lease, the value of the benefit accruing as aforesaid shall be reduced proportionately."
We should like to see the words added:
"…to its pre-working condition."
The point is that, in many cases, particularly in Northamptonshire, leases of this kind contain no covenant actually to restore the land, but merely to pay an agreed sum of money in default of the land being restored. That situation does not seem to be covered by the present drafting, and therefore I venture to put this idea into the noble Lord's head.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not nearly so competent to speak on this Amendment as the noble Marquess who has just sat down; but I should like to say a word of caution about the use of Lord Macdonald's phrase "an agreed Amendment." He is always so courteous that I do not wish to be guilty of discourtesy to him. This Amendment has been agreed between operators and landlords but, however satisfactory that may be, it has not been agreed by Parliament. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that—I gather that he does. So the fact that the operators and landlords have agreed does not entirely remove our preoccupation about being asked to approve this rather difficult and Technical Amendment at the very last moment, before it has been fully discussed in the House. I gather that my noble
1308
friend Lord Reading thinks that the Amendment is all right, and I hope that is so. In future, however, I think it would be perhaps better, where an important Amendment of this kind has inevitably to be inserted at a late date, if the Report stage might be delayed—say for twenty-four hours—to enable the House properly to digest the Amendment before it comes before us.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. It is not easy to interpret quickly and clearly this new and lengthy clause. I understand that the intention is to be fair to all concerned, but there is still some anxiety in Northamptonshire, and other places, as to the effect of this clause and how it will be interpreted by different people. I was relieved to hear that agreement had been reached, but I am not certain that the agreement is complete. I think a little doubt was still felt about the restoration of the land to a quality and value as good as before. There is really no halfway house in that. It is the partly restored land which provides a problem, as the land may be handed back to the owner worth only a proportion of what it was worth before. I understand that it is intended to overcome this difficulty, but it seems that the land owner, having made his contribution, may lose both ways, unless this clause is interpreted as intended by the draftsman. I hope we may have an assurance that agreement on this matter is fairly complete, and that there is no need for anxiety.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, let me say at once that I have great sympathy with what fell from the lips of the noble Marquess and of the noble Duke. I agree that Amendments of this importance should not be introduced so late in the proceedings. The only reason here—I think a very good one—is that we are nearing the end of the Session; there is a lot to be done and it was felt that, since agreement had been reached, the Amendment could be placed on the Order Paper. I am sorry if I led the noble Marquess to understand that there was a suggestion that there was any agreement between the two sides of this

1309
House. I had no intention of doing that, and I do not think I did. The agreement is between the Landowners' Association and the Federation of British Industries. They agreed on the terms of this clause in its entirety. Whether they have overlooked anything I do not know. I can give a further explanation of the clause if noble Lords opposite feel some hesitation in supporting the new clause. If they have no hesitation in supporting it, I will refer to the Amendments suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. He knows that I could not possibly accept those Amendments here and now. The procedure between the two Houses is such that an Amendment inserted here can be further amended in another place. On that understanding, I would suggest that he accepts the new clause, knowing that what he has suggested can be considered between now and the nest stage in another place.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord says that there has been agreement between the Country Landowners' Association and the Government over this clause—
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The Federation of British Industries.
LORD CARRINGTON: I do not think that is quite right. Speaking for the Landowners' Association, I think that that statement is not quite correct. So far as I know, the Government have consulted one of the officials of the Association, and he has agreed, with one or two reservations which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has made, that the clause, so far as he can see, is not a bad one. But the discussion had nothing to do with the Association.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, all I can say is that I am advised that the Landowners' Association and the Federation of British Industries have agreed on this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOW1TT): My Lords, I think we are in danger of getting into a Committee stage discussion. I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess has said. It is obviously most unsatisfactory that a clause of this magnitude should come
1310
on at the very last moment. I am very sorry; I did not know about it. We all desire that this should not be made into a precedent, and so far as I can, I will see to it that this does not happen again. What the noble Marquess has said is perfectly right. The fact that a clause may be agreed between two interests does not in the least bind this House, which has the duty of considering not only the interests of the two immediate protagonists but also the interests of the industry as a whole, which is quite a different matter. Therefore, I express my sympathy with, and entirely support, what the noble Marquess has said. All I can say is I am sorry we have put this Amendment down in this way. I will do all I can to see that such a thing does not happen again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is rather important, because we have now reached a point where it appears, from the speeches of two noble Lords, that the agreement which has been reached would not at any rate satisfy one of the two bodies concerned, a very important body representing land owners. I do not know what will happen to this Bill after we have dealt with it. Presumably, it will go hack to another place where this Amendment will have to he considered. This Amendment will go to another place as receiving the concurrence and support of your Lordships' House, Presumably, in that case, it will there be supported by the Government, and will be agreed to without further ado. I wish I could feel that there were some possibility of this matter being discussed further in this House before it is actually passed into law. No doubt, that would have been very easy earlier in the Session, but at this moment we are faced with a great shortage of time. If we were to ask the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, that this matter should be brought up again, say, on Monday or Tuesday next, I take it that he would reply that if that were done there would be no chance of the Bill's being sent back to another place and receiving the Royal Assent before the Recess. In this very difficult situation—I do not want to make too heavy weather of this but it is an important point—I wonder whether the noble Lord would give some sort of assurance that if, at a later date (because this is really the Government's doing), it turns out that

1311
there are serious objections to the Amendment, the Government will consider further Amendments to the Bill. I feel that we are being hustled into passing this Amendment, which none of us really understands. We have been put into this position through no fault of our own. Therefore, I feel that some concession ought to be made by the Government to meet our difficulties.
2.57 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, think I am in order in speaking, as I have not yet spoken on the Report stage, and, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, by leave of the House, will be able to answer me. I should like to ask: What are the current prices referred to in the Amendment? Are they intended to be the prices of land? If they are, there will be no harm, of course, in inserting the words suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I would also ask: To what is the land to be restored? I presume that it is to be restored to its pre-working condition, otherwise it will not be fully restored. If it satisfies everybody to have in those words, then it will be simple to add them. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, cannot answer those two questions on the spur of the moment. As your Lordships' House has a considerable amount of Business to get through to-day, it occurs to me that, if it would be any advantage, no doubt we could still take the Third Reading to-day, if it were postponed until after some of the other Business that falls to be done this afternoon had been completed—that is to say, the Third Reading would not be moved immediately we had completed the Report stage, but would be moved at a later stage this afternoon, when the noble Lord would have had an opportunity of consulting his officials in the Ministry about the suggestions made by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, let me again say that I am in full sympathy with the attitude taken up by the noble Marquess. He and other noble Lords who have served in another place for a number of years know that this is not the right way to legislate, but it is simply pressure of time which is causing the difficulty. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is that we
1312
should complete the Report stage now in the ordinary way, leaving the Third Reading until after the remainder of the Business to-day, and that in the short intervening time we may reach some understanding on this Amendment. I was going here and now to suggest some alteration, but I am inclined to sympathise with the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. However, I am advised that there is one technical difficulty, in that it will not be possible to move a manuscript Amendment on Third Reading.
Another suggestion which has been made to get over this difficulty is that this new clause should be left over for further consideration between now and the time when we complete the Report stage. I understand that that would be in order. In that case, I think we had better leave this particular clause until the end of the Report stage, and not complete the Report stage until after we have finished the rest of the Business for to-day. That would help us immensely In that case I would move that the, debate on this particular clause be now adjourned until the completion of the rest of the proceedings for to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is another difficulty. There is no difficulty in moving that the debate on this matter be adjourned, so that it may come at the end of to-day's proceedings, but more than that I do not think we can do. I am afraid it means that all the rest of the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill will have to be taken then. I have never heard of any procedure such as this, but I think that what I shall have to do is to put a Motion that the debate on the Report stage of the Bill be adjourned.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Is it not possible to postpone the discussion on the new clause after Clause 26?
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if I am allowed to speak again, on a different matter, may I say that I do not think there is great controversy about anything else in this Report stage? If we adjourn the whole matter, I think the rest of the Report stage can be completed in about five minutes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What we have to do is to adjourn the debate

1313
on the Report stage as a whole until the end of out proceedings, or to a later time to-day, and we must go on with the next Business. The Motion should be that the debate on the Report stage of the Bill be adjourned until later in the day.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That the debate on the Report stage of the Bill be adjourned until later in the day.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (CIVIL LIST PROVISIONS) BILL
3.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill concerns the allowance which was, provided for by the Act of 1937 to Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. The fact of this Bill having to be brought before Parliament only serves to show that there are other people who make mistakes. This was patently a mistake; it is obvious that this House, and Parliament as a whole, are already completely committed to make this allowance. The Act of 1937 provided that an allowance of £6,000 a year should be paid to Princess Margaret on her attaining her majority, but, owing to an error in Section 13 of the Act, that obligation was not specifically charged on the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, all we have to do is to make good what was an obvious drafting error at that time. I know that if we had to consider this matter again we should unanimously pass a somewhat higher figure, but that is not the question here at all. We have simply to rectify a purely technical error that has been made. Although the sum was voted, it was not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and all we are doing is to make good that obvious error. As I say, we are already completely committed to this allowance, and I am sure this Bill will commend itself to all quarters of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.7 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill on which, happily, I am quite sure there will be no controversy at all in any part of the House. Indeed, I understand from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that, but for a drafting error, to which the best of men is liable, the point with which it deals would have been approved by Parliament fourteen years ago. Moreover, I should have thought that the purpose of the Bill was one which we would all wholeheartedly support. Our Royal Family to-day is, I suppose, more universally beloved, probably, than at any time in our history; and that is due, above all, to the unremitting devotion which they show to the service of their country. Not a day passes without evidence of this, and their devotion, of course, imposes a special obligation upon Parliament to make it possible for them to perform in a fitting manner the arduous duties which they are called upon to undertake. Such is the purpose of this Bill, and, speaking at any rate for those who sit on this side of the House, I am sure that we shall pass it without more ado, in that spirit of loyal affection which your Lordships always show to the Crown.
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I need do no more than to say that noble Lords on these Benches cordially concur in the passage of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.10 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 Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD O'HAGAN in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Amendment of 11 & 12 Geo 6. c. 29. s. 47]:
LORD AMMON: I beg to move the only Amendment which appears on the Order Paper to this Bill. It is merely

1315
a drafting Amendment, and excludes paragraph (b) of subsection (4) from application to Scotland, where matters of this kind are dealt with by the Sheriff and not by a justice of the peace. No courts of summary jurisdiction in Scotland are concerned with civil affairs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, after ("and") insert ("paragraph (b) of").—(Lord Ammon.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: We have no objection whatever to this Amendment which, as the noble Lord has said, is merely a matter of drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), the Amendment reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN CUSTOMS BILL
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Pakenham, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is an annual Bill, and, I think, needs no explanation from me. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

TELEPHONE BILL
3.14 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.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be reported to the House, without amendment?
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: Before the Bill is reported to the House I have one point to raise. During the Second Reading two days ago I referred to the matter of the negative Resolution procedure. Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, lays down that all regulations made under this Bill should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. Whereas I and my noble friends are entirely in agreement that regulations dealing with conditions and terms should properly be dealt with in that way, we feel that regulations relating to charges would more properly be dealt with by the affirmative Resolution procedure. In certain circumstances, if the charges for telephones were ever raised, it might well be, in effect, equivalent to an increase in taxation which, by historic practice, requires the assent of Parliament. This point was raised in another place. The Postmaster-General showed considerable sympathy with it, but pointed out the great difficulty of having two sets of procedures in one Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, replying for the Government on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, said that his right honourable friend did not think he could meet us on this point. When I asked whether he would be good enough to refer back to his right honourable friend Lord Archibald said that he would, and that he would give us some information at this stage of the Bill.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of making a statement on this point. As I promised on Second Reading, I have discussed the matter again with my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General. May I say, in the first place, that we do not accept the argument that charges for telephone services are in any way to be described as being in the nature of taxation? We believe that they are payments for services, in exactly the same way that payment of a railway fare is a payment for service, or payment of any other charge is a payment for service. My right honourable friend did, however, give very serious consideration again to the possibility that charges, or increases in charges, in particular, might be the subject of the affirmative Resolution pro-

1317
cedure. But one of the great difficulties that presents itself is to draw a clear line between charges and conditions.
Perhaps I may give one or two illustrations. A condition of service is that a normal time for a telephone call is three minutes. It would be possible to make a new condition that the time should be two minutes. That is, obviously, in practice and in fact, an increase in charge. But it could be done under the procedure for change of condition, and would be subject to the negative Resolution. Or, again, it may be normal in installing an instrument to supply a certain length of cord. By a change in condition, subject to negative Resolution, the length of cord might be reduced, which would again be, in reality, an increase in charge. There are so many practical difficulties in drawing a clear line between charges and conditions that it was felt there could not be two different procedures for these, but that there should be only the one procedure. Consideration was given to the question whether that procedure should be by the affirmative or negative Resolution, and for the reasons advanced by the Postmaster-General in another place, and which I repeated during the Second Reading debate in this House, it was felt that, to allow the necessary flexibility for so vast an organisation as this, the procedure should be by negative Resolution. That does, of course, give Parliament effective and greater control over the telephone service than it has hitherto had. I am sorry not to be able to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite in this matter, but I indicated during the Second Reading debate that I was not optimistic of being able to do so. I can assure noble Lords that the matter has been very fully and thoroughly reconsidered, but the Postmaster-General feels unable to meet them.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am obliged for the very careful consideration which the noble Lord has given to this point, and for his considerate and courteous answer to-day. I will not take the matter further.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.
Then, Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (PROTECTION OF CIVIL INTERESTS) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 13:
[Effect of failure to observe restrictions under Part I]
(2) In any action for damages for conversion or other proceedings which lie by virtue of any such omission, failure or contravention, the court may take account of the conduct of the defendant with a view, if the court thinks fit, to awarding exemplary damages in respect of the wrong sustained by the plaintiff.
(3) If in any such action or proceedings as aforesaid the court is satisfied that the defendant acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to he excused for the omission, failure or contravention, the count may relieve the defendant from liability in respect thereof.
(4) In so far as it appears to the appropriate court to he practicable to remedy the results of any such omission, failure or contravention as aforesaid specifically without prejudice to the interests of third parties, the court may give any such directions for restoration of property, repayment of money or other measures as may appear to the court to he requisite for that purpose.
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "such action or proceedings ns aforesaid" and insert "action or proceedings which lie by virtue of any such omission, failure or contravention." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Loris, the first of the Amendments in my name is to Clause 13, to which my attention was directed during the Committee stage by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who suggested that I might profitably look at it again. There has been precious little time since the Committee stage and I have not had an opportunity for those consultations which I should have desired. Accordingly I have had to act as best I could. The first Amendment and the one following deal with this point. When we commenced our consideration of this clause, it was pointed out to me that it was just possible, barely possible, that criminal proceedings might here be involved. If there can be any question of criminal proceedings, obviously it is right that the defence of having acted reasonably and honestly, which is available in civil proceedings, should also be available in criminal cases.

1319
I confess I am exceedingly doubtful whether criminal proceedings could lie for a breach of the terms of this Bill. For breach of a statutory prohibition to give rise to a Common Law misdemeanour, it would usually have to be shown that the prohibition is for the benefit of the public at large, whereas in this case it is for the benefit of only particular persons—namely, Service men and their families. I do not think the point is a very real one, but it has been drawn to my attention, and I thought I ought to make the matter quite certain. The Amendment has no other effect at all and does not prejudice other parts of the Bill. It is only to make plain that the defence of having acted reasonably and honestly should he available if there were any criminal proceedings, though I frankly say I find it difficult to see what criminal proceedings could be laid.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 23, leave out ("such action or proceedings as aforesaid") and insert ("action or proceedings which lie by virtue of any such omission, failure or contravention").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, there is nothing like being sure. I share the view of the noble and learned Viscount that this is an improbable hare. Still, let us be quite sure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is merely consequential on the first. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("the omission, failure or contravention") and insert ("it").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) In relation to an action or other proceedings tried by a judge and jury—

(a) the references to the court in subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall he construed as references to the jury, but without prejudice to the power of the judge to give to the jury directions whether there is any evidence of facts justifying an award of exemplary damages on the one hand or the granting of relief on the other hand, or to give them advice as to the making of such an award or grant;

(b) the references to the court in subsection (4) of this section shall he construed as references to the judge alone."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of more substance. In discussion, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out that we were apt nowadays to slip into the habit of assuming that all these cases are to be tried by a judge alone. In our young days these cases were tried by judge and jury, and there is no reason why they should not be tried by a judge and jury now. The noble and learned Viscount thought it was desirable, and I respectfully agree, to try to make clear what were the functions of a judge and jury in such a case. I expressed the view that the functions of a judge would be to lay down whether there was any evidence for consideration by the jury that a man had acted otherwise than unreasonably, and then it would be the function of the jury to decide what was their view of the fact. Difficulty arose also in subsection (4), where the words used are "the court" and it was difficult to see what "the court" meant there. In consequence, we have put down the Amendment to make the matter plain. This is the best I have been able to do in the interval of time between the day before yesterday and to-day. I think it clarifies the matter and I hope your Lordships will agree that it makes plain the meaning of this clause on the lines which I tried to expound on the last occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 9, at end, insert—
("(5) In relation to an action or other proceedings tried by a judge and jury—

(a) the references to the court in subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be construed as references to the jury, but without prejudice to the power of the judge to give to the jury directions whether there is any evidence of facts justifying an award of exemplary damages on the one hand or the granting of relief on the other hand, or to give them advice as to the making of such an award or grant;

(b) the references to the court in subsection (4) of this section shall be construed as references to the judge alone.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for giving his attention to this point. I am glad to find he agrees with me that something should be put into the Bill to clear up ambiguity. If we take the Bill as a whole, we find constant reference to "the court." In

1321
Clause 2, it is "the leave of the court," and reference to "the court" again appears in Clauses 22 and 30. In all these cases, except in those dealt with in Clause 13, there can be no doubt at all that the court is authorised, in the sense that the judge is authorised to do something—to give leave to proceed, for example. One does not ask a jury for leave to proceed; one asks the judge. It is true of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, which constantly uses the words "the court," that it is quite plain that that means the judge, and the same is true of the Rent Restrictions Act. But Clause 13 of this Bill, which I observed on the last occasion was an unusual clause—nothing of the sort is to be found in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act—really raises issues of the kind which may well be tried by a judge and jury. Therefore, in Clause 13, though in no other clauses of the Bill, we need to put in clearly what is meant. I venture to say that I think the way it is done is satisfactory, and I am glad that we shall improve the Bill in this manner.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Facilities for action on behalf of men serving abroad in proceedings as to tenancies]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment, and the two following, are designed to clear up the complicated structure of this clause. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said he was somewhat puzzled by a first reading of this clause. I had been somewhat puzzled after reading it several times, and I promised I would do what I could to have it cleared up. These three Amendments, all of which are drafting, make it a little easier for he who runs to read. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 24, leave out ("or has purported to take").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. On the Committee stage I suggested that the words should be sorted out in order to bring the verb tenses in relation one to the other. That has now been successfully done and I hope it improves the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 25, leave out ("or was").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 26, after ("abroad") insert ("or has purported to take a step in the proceedings on his behalf at a time when he was so serving").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Provisions as to firemen's pensions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet a point to which our attention was called by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. The confusion arose over the fact that a period of service might include training and something else as well. The noble Viscount's keen military eye spotted this difficulty, and he called our attention to it. I promised on the last occasion to put clown an Amendment to deal with the point, and I hope he is satisfied with what I have clone. I am grateful to him for calling our attention to what was an obvious blemish on the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 37, leave out ("by way of training") and insert ("for the purposes of training only").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the Amendment just moved by the Lord Chancellor entirely meets my point, and I am grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46:
General provisions as to payments to make up civil remuneration
(4) In determining for the purposes of this section the remuneration which a justices' clerk or employee of a justices' clerk who is performing relevant service to which this Part of this Act applies when section nineteen of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, comes into force would have received if he had continued to be occupied in that capacity, the consequences which would have ensued in his case upon the coming into force of that section shall be left out of account.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Marquess said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Llewellin stated in moving this Amendment in Committee that he was merely doing so in order to obtain a short expression of opinion on it from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Therefore, I bee to move formally the Amendment in his name.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 40, leave out subsection (4).—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, when, in dealing with this vast Bill, the question was shot at me, I was bound to say that I did not know what the answer was, and I expect that became patently obvious to all your Lordships who saw me in my difficulties. I have now had the advantage of looking at the point and being advised upon it, and this is the explanation. The point concerns, and concerns only, a justices' clerk or one of his assistants who has been called up before April 1, 1953, and is serving as a soldier on that date. The date is April 1, 1953, because on that day it is proposed by Order in Council to bring into force Section 19 of the Justices of the Peace Act. As from that day, the justices' clerks will have a different employer. Whereas before they used to be clerks to the borough justices, or clerks to the county justices, being servants of the borough justices or of the Standing Joint Committee, as the case might be, they will, as from April 1, 1953, have a wholly new employer—namely, the magistrates' courts committee, who will very likely have a totally different scale and standard of remuneration.
The subsection leaves the existing justices responsible for determining the balance of civil pay in the case of a clerk to the borough justices, and the Standing Joint Committee in the case of the clerk to the county justices. Let me make it plain that it does not debar those present authorities from granting an increase. It does not follow that the salary will be frozen throughout the man's service at the level it was before he went away. It will be quite competent for the old authority to grant an increase in the salary while he is away, and so raise the balance of civil pay. It would not be practicable to transfer the responsibility for deciding whether the balance of civil
1324
pay should be made up, and for deciding the salary, to the new authority—the magistrates' courts committee—while the man is away, because when Section 19 comes into force the salary of many justices' clerks will be determined according to a new basis, and the review which will have to be made by the magistrates' courts committee will undoubtedly involve discussions with the clerk.
Further, the local authorities may not like the way in which the new basis has been applied, and may wish to appeal to the Home Office. These matters could not be settled satisfactorily while the clerk is away in the Armed Forces. It is therefore necessary to leave things as they were until he returns, and to leave him still (if I may put it shortly in this way) under the jurisdiction of his old master, who will be entitled to grant him whatever he thinks proper in the way of increase of salary, and consequently higher payment in making up his emoluments. It would be impracticable, we think, to put him under the new body of the magistrates' courts committee, which did not exist when he was called up for service. Your Lordships will see that the subsection applies to a limited class of people: it applies only to justices' clerks called up before April 1, 1953, and who are still serving on that date. If any justices' clerk is called up after April 1, 1953, then it will be his new employer, the magistrates' courts committee, who will decide what is the right thing to do. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, of the purpose of this clause. I am only sorry that I could not give it to him on the last occasion, because, as I said before, in a Bill of this magnitude it is difficult to know all the points.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for that explanation. I am only sorry that I did not know that this Amendment was coming on so quickly, and consequently was not here to move it myself Also, as I think I indicated before, I am sorry I did not give the noble and learned Viscount notice of my question; but it was brought to my attention only a few minutes before I raised the matter in your Lordships' House. On the whole, I believe the explanation we have now received will be considered a satisfactory one. Looking at it from a practical

1325
basis, one finds there are not a great number of justices' clerks who are likely to he called up. Largely, they are, as befits that office, more experienced, and there for older, men. But they were slightly concerned, and felt that they were being singled out for treatment that was not to be applied to other types of persons in, for instance, local government service, who would automatically receive a rise when the rates for the job were increased. If, as the noble and learned Viscount has assured us, the justices' clerks' salaries can be increased while they are away (for instance, on a review of salaries over a whole county) in the same way as those of their colleagues who have not been called up, then that will show them that they are not being singled out. The matter will arise only in cases where the magistrates' courts committee, a new employer, as t were, comes into the picture, and I have no doubt that they, being sensible and public-minded people, will see that something is done to meet these cases, although it will not automatically be done under the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule:
Service Relevant for the purposes of the Act
(iv) Service in pursuance of any enlistment for a period not exceeding eighteen months with a view to service in Korea.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, when I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, to withdraw his Amendment on the Committee stage, I said that we should probably have to make other consequential Amendments. This is one of them. It is the same point that we discussed a moment ago. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 10, leave out ("otherwise than by way of training") and insert (", other than for the purposes of training only,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment raises a further point mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We specified in the
1326
Schedule service in Korea. The noble Viscount said (I am paraphrasing): "You are putting that into a Bill which is expected to become a permanent piece of our legislative machine. Korea may pass out of the picture altogether, and for 'Korea' you may have to read some other place in a few years' time. It is very odd that in this permanent piece of legislation you should tie yourselves exclusively to Korea." I thought at the time that it was a sound point, and the military authorities now appreciate the soundness of it. Therefore, what we propose to do is to leave out the word "Korea" and insert the words appearing on the Marshalled List of Amendments. I hope that meets the point made by the noble Viscount, and I am grateful to him for raising it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 24, leave out ("Korea") and insert ("the Korean operations continuing at the passing of this Act or in other operations designated for the purposes of this subparagraph by His Majesty by Order in Council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, once again I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount. The Amendment now moved completely meets my point and I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for moving it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment already discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 25, leave out ("otherwise than by way of training") and insert (", other than for the purposes of training only,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 3, leave out ("Korea") and insert ("such operations as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (iv) of this Paragraph").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point we have discussed before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 30, leave out ("by way of training") and insert (",for the purposes of training only.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a Third time. In so doing, I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, is pleased to give his consent so far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, and that the House may proceed thereon as they shall think fit. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL
3.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I venture to say a word on the Motion that the Report be now received? We have now reached a stage in which the two Bills for England and Scotland are nearly complete; but as I see it, there is an omission from both Bills—the rivers which flow between England and Scotland are not provided for. I think that is a regrettable fact, and I am rising simply to ask the Government whether they have any statement to make on their proposals. The two rivers particularly concerned are, of course, the Esk and the Tweed. In the Broun Lindsay Report it was suggested broadly that the Tweed should be regarded as a Scottish river, and the Esk as an English river. I am not sure that that is a fair exchange, but that was the
1328
recommendation. The Report reads as follows, and I think it is worth remembering this, because it is not an unimportant point:
"We assume that with the adoption of the general principles that the whole of the river and its tributaries should be in one area of administration, it would be necessary to provide for joint action by the appropriate authorities in cases where a river or tributary of a river is partly in England and partly in Scotland. The present machinery for joint action in such cases is the River Pollution Prevention Border Counties Act, 1898. This is rather a cumbersome Act, has never been put into operation and should be simplified."
In point of fact, that Act is repealed by the Bill now under consideration, and nothing is put in its place. I am sure we must all agree that these rivers are better dealt with by one board through the whole of their length, and it seems a pity that, for one reason or another, it has not been possible to include such a provision in this Bill. I raised this point on the Second Reading, but it was only during the Committee stage that I realised that there was no possibility of getting anything of this nature included.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving me an opportunity of making a brief statement on the position in regard to these two rivers, both of which flow in Scotland and in England. When the Bill was in another place it was hoped to introduce, after the purely Scottish stage of the Bill had been passed, a Border river clause providing, in respect of the Rivers Tweed and Esk, for co-ordination of action between the Scottish river purification boards and the English river boards concerned. However, technical difficulties arose in another place, and it was not found possible to proceed as previously intended. The question of overcoming the difficulty of amending legislation in the form of a Border Rivers Bill is at present under the active consideration of the two Ministers concerned—the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Local Government and Planning. I hope the noble Earl will accept my assurance that an amending Bill will be introduced as soon as it is possible to do so.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his statement, which I am sure will be welcomed in all parts of the House. Perhaps the last

1329
elements of Border warfare will then terminate.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 1 [Duty of Secretary of State in relation to prevention of pollution of rivers and ether waters]:
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is a Government Amendment which is self-explanatory. The House will remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I gave an undertaking to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to deal with this matter. This is the fulfilment of my undertaking. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" (4) The secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any report made to him by the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee upon any matter which in his opinion is likely to be of general public interest.")—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord very warmly for this Amendment, which fully meets the point which I raised on Committee stage?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Definition of river purification board areas and establishment of river purification boards
(4) In the selection of members to be appointed by them, the council of a county shall have regard to the relative rateable valuations of the small burghs and of the landward area of the county respectively comprised in the river purification board area; and in making appointments under this section the councils of counties and large burghs shall not appoint ally officer or servant of the council or of any other local authority:
Provided that the council of a county or a large burgh shall not be precluded from appointing a member of the council who is also the officer or servant of another local authority.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SALTOUNmoved, in subsection (4) to leave out all words from the beginning of the subsection down to "in making appointments." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the words I wish to delete are these:
"In the selection of members to be appointed by them, the council of a county shall have regard to the relative rateable valuations of the small burghs and of the landward area of the county respectively comprised in the river purification board area."
1330
In moving this Amendment, I hope to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, why I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill. Suppose that a river board consists of thirty persons, of whom the Secretary of State appoints one-third and the county two-thirds. Under the words which I seek to delete, it may well be, that the burgh areas in the county appoint nineteen-twentieths of the remaining members, because, as the relative rateable valuations are the measure of the representation, the burgh areas are almost certain to have at least twenty times the rateable value of the landward areas which, as your Lordships know, are de-rated. There are some cases where that will not be the case, bit I put that proportion to an expert not very many minutes ago, and he did not dissent from it. In those circumstances, it certainly means putting into practice the principle that the people who will have to pay should have representation. But there is also this to consider: that the people who have the biggest rateable valuation are also the very people who do the most pollution—which means setting Satan to reprove sin with a vengeance.
If these words were not in the Bill the county council would appoint whom it liked—and most probably they would be the same people as if these words were in the Bill, But at least it would give the council a chance of making a different kind of appointment. As it is, with these words in the Bill I submit that you are cutting your own throats, and making quite certain that the Bill will not achieve the effect which its Title suggests. I know very well that these boards are only to give directions but the principle purpose of the representation of the burgh members on the county councils is to keep down the rates, so far as possible. These burghs attend to their own business with their owl finance, within the burgh, and one thing they do not want is to have a large county rate. It has been suggested to me that the people in the burgh will be so enthusiastic about the purification of the river running at their doors, that they will insist on their burgh councillors doing something to purify those rivers. In my experience that is not the kind of way in which electors act. On the contrary, they will be very anxious to prevent an increase in the rates—much more so than to have the river purified. It seems to me that,

1331
as more and more money will be spent on polluting rivers, more and more will then be spent on purifying them again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out from the beginning to ("in") in line 18.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has put down this Amendment—not because I propose to accept it, but because I know how enthusiastic he is that this should be a good Bill. I hope the reasons I am about to give him will, perhaps, lead him to the conclusion that on balance the Bill as it stands is better than it would be if his Amendment were included. Under Clause 35 (2) of the Bill, as in effect the noble Lord said, a small burgh is:
"… deemed to be included in the county in the area of which it is situate."
One effect of this provision will be that the amount of the requisition to be made by the river purification board on the county council in respect of their share of the board's expenses will be borne both by county ratepayers and by the ratepayers of the small burghs in the county. The point of difference between the noble Lord and myself is that he is prepared to agree that, if the small burghs were to be excluded from representation on the new river purification boards, the cardinal principle of "no taxation without representation" would be violated. The noble Lord argued that would make no difference—I think the words he used were, in effect, that people will be so enthusiastic that they will not bother about representation. With all due respect—the noble Lord's acquaintance with Scotland is closer than mine—I think that is most unlikely.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did not argue that at all. What I argued was that these words are a direction that they shall have proportionate representation. I suggest that these words be left out, and that the county council should be allowed to take their own line. It may be the same line, but, on the other hand, it may be different.
LORD MORRISON: Possibly the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that Clause 13 (d) of the Bill says that the disciplinary powers of the Secretary of State in respect of default of the local authority are applied to the Bill. If the fear is that,
1332
because of the presence on the river purification board of the representatives of small burghs, some of whom, no less than county councils and town councils of large burghs, are polluters, the river purification board will be inactive—that I think is the argument—then I would point out that under Clause 13 (c), the disciplinary powers of the Secretary of State in respect of the default of the local authority are applied to the Bill. Under these provisions, the Secretary of State may, after local inquiry, make an order declaring the river purification board to be in default; and, failing compliance with such an order, the Lord Advocate may make application to the Court of Session. So the noble Lord will see. I hope, that his fears are not well grounded. I hope that in these circumstances he may agree that, on balance, as I have said, the Bill is better as it stands.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot agree with what the noble Lord says. I will give him an example showing why. He will know that although the agricultural executive committees of Scotland have many times recommended to the Secretary of State that certain farmers should be relieved of their farms for bad agriculture, so far no action has been taken. However bad the rivers of Scotland become, I do not think the Secretary of State will take independent action. As for taxation without representation, the noble Lord and I are taxed—and very heavily—but are we represented? I am told that I cannot divide on this Amendment, and I am very sorry that I cannot. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Reports]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause:
"(3) A river purification hoard shall cause a copy of every report made by them under this section to be open to public inspection at all reasonable hours without payment and shall on application furnish a copy thereof to any person on payment of such sum not exceeding one shilling for every copy as the board may determine."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment again, is self-explanatory. I gave an undertaking to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk in Committee, and I hope that he will feel this is a genuine attempt to meet the point raised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, which meets fully the point I had in mind. I am sure that it is a marked improvement on the clause as it was drawn before.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33:
Supplementary powers of Secretary of State
33. For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to perform any of his functions under this Act he or any person authorised by him shall have the like right to enter any land or vessel or to carry out any inspection or survey or to make copies of or extracts from any document or to obtain and take away samples as is conferred by this Act on a river purification authority or any person authorised by such art authority.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that the right conferred by this section shall not be exercisable in relation to a vessel in any case where a river purification authority or any person authorised by such an authority is entitled to and is willing to exercise the like right in the performance of any functions of the authority under this Act."
The noble Earl said: This is a proviso to a new clause which was moved in the course of the Committee stage. I am moving this proviso primarily with the object of asking His Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance on two points, As it stands, the new clause gives to the Secretary of State the right, in fulfilling his functions under this Bill, to enter on vessels and ships in tidal waters, certainly of the Forth and the Clyde, and eventually, probably, of all rivers or any river in Scotland.
The two points which I wish to raise are these. First, I hope that I am right in assuming that this will not mean a duplication of any investigation which may be carried out on behalf of the river boards. I want to be quite clear that that is not the case, and that the Secretary of State, if he feels inclined, will be able to carry out the investigation, although the river purification board are in fact, operating successfully. As the clause is drafted, it is not clear whether or not it gives wider powers than are really necessary. I should like to know whether I am correct in that, or whether the Secretary of State's functions come into operation only
1334
when the river boards have failed in their duty, in which event he takes over from them in certain respects. The other point is this. I understand that this clause is not intended in any way to be used for routine visits to vessels and ships; that it is intended only that visits should take place from time to time, when a survey is being made of the whole estuary or of the river as such—that is to say, that visits will be made only at considerable intervals and will certainly not be routine visits to be carried out every time a vessel comes into tidal waters in Scotland. If the noble Lord can satisfy me on those two points, I will withdraw the Amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I hope to make a brief statement to the noble Earl which will satisfy him on the points he has raised. I may add that I have been in consultation with the Law Officers of the Department for Scotland to make sure that I am on sound ground. The occasions on which the Secretary of State may require to exercise the powers of entry, inspection and sampling, conferred by the clause, are three: (1) making by-laws in default of the river purification authority; (2) reviewing, if necessary, relaxations from standards granted by the river purification authority under Clause 27; and (3) determining the conditions to lie imposed in respect of new outlets or new discharges under Clause 28. It is clear that the need to exercise, in relation to vessels, the power for the first and third of these purposes will seldom, if ever, arise. In the second case, however—that of reviewing, if necessary, relaxations from standards granted by the river purification authority under Clause 27—the Secretary of State may wish to review the relaxation from standards granted in respect of, say, a houseboat. In such a case it would administratively be an impossible situation if he had to rely on the information that the river purification authority, an interested party, were entitled and willing to obtain. Certainly, the occasions on which the power will be used in relation to vessels will be very rare, and there need be no fear that the clearance of a vessel will be delayed because of the exercise of the Secretary

1335
of State's powers. I hope that, in the light of that assurance, the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IDENTITY CARDS
4.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to move to resolve, That in present conditions the use of identity cards is unnecessary and oppressive and should be discontinued without delay. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Motion is the fulfilment of an assurance which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when his answer to a Question of mine on this subject some three weeks ago produced such a cascade of supplementaries as to indicate that your Lordships would desire ampler discussion of the subject than was possible in the then circumstances. In my Motion, I have described identity cards as being, under present conditions, oppressive and unnecessary. The Government, on the other hand, take the view that they fulfil a valuable purpose and that there is no prospect in any foreseeable future of their being withdrawn from us. It is true to say that, in his reply to various inquiries on the same subject, the Prime Minister has recently somewhat narrowed the period to the "immediate future." But I think the two statements are really not inconsistent because, so far as the present Government are concerned, there is no material difference between the "immediate" and the "foreseeable" future.
When I asked my Question, I invited the noble Lord who was replying to state the reasons for which he considered that the system of identity cards should be retained. It is perhaps of value to your Lordships and fair to the noble Lord that I should read the terms of his answer at this stage. The reasons he gave were that
1336
"Identity cards are an essential part of the national registration system, which continues to render valuable service in connection with National Service, security, food rationing, the National Health Service and the administration of other services, such as family allowances and post-war credits. The possession of an identity card as a simple means of establishing identity is of benefit to the individual in various ways. It enables him to obtain a new ration book and to withdraw money from the Post Office Savings Bank with the minimum of formality; it simplifies the process of obtaining a passport; it makes it unnecessary to produce a birth certificate in support of a claim for the payment of post-war credits; and it avoids difficulty in establishing identity when applying for dental or other treatment or to be placed on a doctor's list."
I will deal in due course with those reasons so advanced, but I should prefer to begin by stating what are our objections to the continuance of the system. It may be that the first objection is, to a large extent, psychological, but it is not for that reason any the less formidable. There was a time, now long past and almost forgotten, when we were able to travel to nearly every country of Europe without a passport. It would, indeed, be a welcome sign that the world was recovering its sanity and stability and reasserting its desire for free circulation if passports could again be dispensed with. But the fact that nowadays we have to have a passport for external use seems to us no reason why we should have to have one for internal use as well.
I read recently in an article in the Sunday Press (with every word of which, as it happens, I agreed), that identity cards were to many people a symbol of regimentation. I believe that to be absolutely true. It is not in the slightest degree accurate to say that only malefactors resent them. Criminals have their own way of solving, that problem, and it is perfectly obvious that nowadays there is a flourishing home industry in what may be called "identity cardsharping." But many people feel that the enforced possession of an identity card is an intrusion upon their private lives and marks them out as mere planning fodder for a card-index State. I do not expect most noble Lords opposite to understand that point of view. If they did, they would not be the Socialists that in varying degrees they are. But at the same time I would beg them to realise that that reaction, however irrational, obstructive, or antediluvian it may seem to them, is nevertheless widespread,

1337
deep-seated and most profoundly genuine, as I have reason to testify, apart from any other source of information, from the letters which have reached me from persons of many different types all over the country since this Motion appeared upon the Order Paper. I would commend to noble Lords opposite some words which were spoken by a supporter of their own Party, when, in September, 1939, the Bill which authorised the introduction of identity cards was being considered in another place. He said:
"One thing that we do respect in this country is our freedom from being challenged on every occasion to produce something to prove that we are certain persons."
Later, a little more than a year ago, the Home Secretary himself showed a glimmer of regeneration when he remarked to a Committee in another place:
"The National Register and the identity card are something alien to the English way of life."
My Lords, the Socialist Party to-day, at any rate in another place, does not appear either to produce or to encourage expressions of support for personal freedom. The toiling masses of Socialist Back Benchers have dutifully learned the lesson that "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best." But, happily, there are many millions of people in this country —old-fashioned and simple-minded, if you will—who doubt the omniscience and dread the omnipotence of Whitehall, who are not yet convinced that it is grand to be planned, and who continue to prefer to be individuals rather than numerals.
Apart altogether from the psychological angle, there is a constitutional angle to this matter which is of the greatest importance, for the question has to be carefully weighed whether it is justifiable on any ground of expediency or convenience to continue in indefinite operation, without further reference to Parliament, powers which were conferred only to meet the particular emergency of the outbreak of war with Germany, and were approved by Parliament only for that purpose. When the National Registration Bill was before another place on September 4, 1939, my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir, then Mr. Colville and Secretary of State for Scotland, in winding up the debate, in which it is right to say that some uneasiness
1338
and even opposition were expressed, used these words:
"The Government did not bring forward the measure without having fully realised that the natural reaction of people in this country against the filling-up of Perms and the answering of questions is a creep and sincere one. But, having in mind the knowledge that we are facing a trial which will require all our forces arid all our strength of man and woman power in the work of Defence, we are satisfied that we must have this Bill."
I hope that the noble Lord who replies for the Government will not endeavour to ride off on the word "Defence" in that quotation, for it is abundantly clear that what my noble friend was there referring to was the imminent danger of a German onslaught upon this country and the need to mobilise all our forces to resist it. I observe that the imminence of attack from Germany was not advanced by the noble Lord in his answer to my Question as one of the reasons for the retention of these documents.
The National Registration Act contains this clause as to the time and the method of its termination:
"This Act shall continue in force until such date as His Majesty may by Order-in-Council declare to be the date on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this Act came to an end, and shall then expire."
My Lords, that is perfectly plain. Identity cards can be issued only under the authority of the National Registration Act, 1939. That Act has to come to an end when it is declared by Order-in-Council that the emergency which occasioned it has come to an end, and it shall then expire. No such Order-in-Council has yet been issued, and we are now blithely assured that the issue of any such order is not in contemplation in the for-seeable future. The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, which was, passed at very much the same time, contains an identical clause as to the time and method of its termination, and it was terminated on October 9 last year by the issue, without any very superhuman convulsion, of the Courts (Emergency Powers) (End of Emergency) Order.
We are therefore confronted with the fantastic situation that powers in regard to which the Government have no further use can be regarded as at an end, whereas powers which the Government choose to preserve have to be regarded as still in force. And yet the emergency in both

1339
cases is the same emergency, and we might surely have been excused for thinking it one and indivisible. Whatever emergency fate or folly may have conjured up at the moment for our chastening, one thing is incontestable—it is not the emergency which occasioned the passing of the National Registration Act in 1939. That Act was, as I have said, to be brought to an end by Order-in-Council when the emergency terminated, and one might well have imagined that the carrying out of that statutory suicide pact was inescapable. Nevertheless, simply for administrative convenience the Government continue to reprieve the victims. It is worth bearing in mind that there was a National Registration Act in the 1914-18 War and that that Act contained the terse and peremptory clause as to its termination that it should continue in force
"during the continuance of the present war and no longer."
With the official termination of that war on August 31, 1921, after the prolonged peace negotiations, that National Registration Act ceased upon the midnight, without pain to itself or grief to anyone else. And with it there perished all those of its fellows which had not, by Statute and after full Parliamentary debate, been given a new lease of life by the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act of 1920.
Let us come to 1939, and remember that before there was ever a system of national registration in existence there had been passed through Parliament the Military Training Act and the National Service (Armed Forces) Act of that year, and by those Acts there was cast upon people liable to service under them the obligation to register in the manner prescribed by the Act. So far as I know, that duty was generally and faithfully performed. There were no identity cards to be handed around. Yet the noble Lord now, in his original Answer to my Question, puts National Service in the forefront of the battle to preserve identity cards to-day, twelve years after their original issue. "Security" he tells us. Perhaps the less said about that, the better. But it is worth remarking in passing that there are still some 10,000 deserters at large, though I continue to think they ought long ago to have been re-admitted to society. The absence of an identity
1340
card does not seem to have led either to their starvation or to their arrest. Rationing, a matter upon which the devotees of the identity card always rely so vigorously, I propose to leave to the practical experience of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, as a former Minister of Food, pausing only to say this: that under the National Registration Act of the First World War there were no identity cards at all, and there was rationing at least of sugar, butter and meat. So it does not seem to be a wholly impossible administrative feat to conduct a rationing system without the affliction of identity cards.
As to passports, I have yet to learn that the fact that we possess an identity card absolves us from the necessity, when applying for a new passport, of filling up a long and complicated form and getting it countersigned by a member of one of those classes of society whom the official mind regards as more respectable than ourselves. As to applications for renewal of passport, no identity card is ever asked for. In regard to Post Office Savings Bank facilities, I am told that not so long ago no criminal assize was complete without several cases of fraud upon the Post Office Savings Bank, and that it was the general experience that a person perpetrating those frauds perpetrated them, not on one occasion, but on probably twenty or thirty occasions. It was a perfectly systematic procedure. Unless the regulations were being consistently ignored, on every one of those twenty or thirty occasions that person would have been under a duty to produce his identity card at the Post Office. And no doubt he did produce an identity card, but it was either forged or else stolen from the unhappy depositor from whom he had also stolen the book which he used for the purpose of perpetrating the fraud. I cannot say that the Post Office Savings Bank seems to me to afford the happiest illustration of the efficacy of the system of identity cards.
Then National Insurance: I have looked at my own handsome National Insurance card, and I observe that there is upon the face of it no mention of any kind of my identity card number. There appears to be no connection between the indexing of the two. The National Insurance card, on the other hand, exhibits, amid a cabalistic combination of letters, a number which I hope conveys

1341
something to the Ministry of Labour: but it is not try identity card number. As to the National Health card, it is quite true that that does bear upon its face the identity card number. But what is the position in regard to the National Health Service and the identity card? We were all under the belief that the National Health Service was something which had now become part of the permanent way of life of this country—and rightly so. On the other hand, we are informed that identity cards are a merely passing pt lance, and that either in the immediate future or at some period in the foreseeable future they will be dispensed with. If identity cards are essential to the administration of the National Health Service, how are we ever again in this world going to dispense with the system of identity cards? What is the good of talking to us about the immediate future or the foreseeable future, when, if we must have them for that purpose, we have got to have them for ever? Is the noble Lord prepared to say that if in 1946, when the National Health Act was introduced, there had not been upon the Statute Book an Act authorising the issue of identity cards, this or any other Government would have come to this or any other Parliament and asked for the introduction by Statute of a system of identity cards? The fact is that all these assorted reasons are mere pretexts to cover up the invincible attachment of the official mind to the maxim that there is safety in numbers.
To justify my belief that the whole system of identity, cards has by now become largely a senseless survival, I would ask leave to read a Letter I received from a personal friend of my own but, nevertheless, a respectable and responsible professional man. He writes as follows:
"Last year, I took my ration book and that of my wife (with her identity card) to get the new books. When asked by the official for my identity card I had to admit that I had lost it. I was told that I would not get a new ration book without it.
No, the old ration book was no criterion—I might have bought it: nor would my passport serve, even though it had got my photograph in it.
Did I realise that there were 20,000 deserters at large? No, he did not think that I looked like one. Oh! of course, I could get a new identity card—in the next street. So there I went, to be met by a pleasant, elderly worn in who would certainly give me a new identity card, if I would give her my name and addres No! that was all they
1342
needed—no proof of my identity was necessary —only my name and address."
The letter ends with the colloquial question which I am tempted to re-echo:
"Can you heat it?"
There is one other serious aspect of this matter; the danger of powers which are conferred for a particular period, and for a particular purpose, being misused when that period is prolonged and that purpose extended. We have only to remember the recent instance where even the Metropolitan Police came under censure from an august quarter for having sought to establish by means of identity cards a kind of private card-index of previous offences by motorists. As the result of that august censure, that system has been suppressed by the Commissioner of Police. I am told that a circular has recently been issued by the Ministry of Health requiring medical practitioners to forward nominal rolls of their patients with identity card numbers of each attached, for the purpose of establishing a central register of persons under the National Health Act. Of course, I have no doubt the general practitioner will welcome some method of employing his leisure to a useful purpose, but in my view that is a complete and flagrant distortion of the real purpose of identity cards. If the Government want to keep the system in being, in case it should be required again in the unhappy event of another outbreak of war, they can easily introduce a Bill to amend the termination clause of the existing Act by providing that its operation shall be forthwith suspended, and that is can be brought into play again by means of an Order in Council if the necessity arises. In the interval, it can repose happily in the Downing Street "deep-freeze," until such time as it is wanted again for the sole legitimate purpose for which it ever ought to exist.
Let the Government remember that most of us know, if not what we are, at least who we are, without documentary proof. Let them also remember that if the Government wish to know who we are, they have open to them every method which was at the disposal of any Government of this country for that purpose up to 1939. If that is net satisfactory, then let them at least have the decency to come to Parliament and say to Parliament that they require a renewal of these

1343
powers after fresh investigation of their need—if they like, with photographs and fingerprints attached for good measure. For it is certain that the powers which they now persist in misusing are not only obnoxious and oppressive but obsolete as well. Above all, let the Government not forget that administrative convenience can be purchased at too high a price in personal freedom and public propriety. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in present conditions the use of identity cards is unnecessary and oppressive, and should be discontinued without delay.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
4.33 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I rise to support in principle, if with a little reservation at this stage of the debate, the Resolution of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I must admit that I support it rather more in the spirit of doctrinaire Liberalism, symptoms of which, I am delighted to note, have not yet completely faded from the noble Marquess's political complexion, than in any real hope that His Majesty's Government may have the courage at this moment to strike off from the ordinary man and woman a shackle which, in effect, is little more than a convenience of regimentation or an illustration of the affinity between the Tory feudalism of the Middle Ages and the Socialist card-indexing of to-day.
In the last hundred years, we have established in this country a form of morality by which we have discovered that it is good and proper and profitable to let ordinary people, of all social classes, exercise their free will to the benefit, not only of themselves but also of their neighbours. The experiment has been magnificently successful, and had it not been for the unfortunate intervention of two world wars, with their inevitable restrictions upon the individual and their miserable engendering of mistrust and self-seeking in all walks of life, we should now be much nearer to that Utopia which in the early years of this century seemed to be almost attainable. The struggle towards individual freedom was hard, and it is to me a source of continual and profound regret that the radical forces which struck against over-privilege and the misuse of prosperity should unfortunately have given birth to an element of dis-
1344
torted and cripple-minded jealousy of all privilege—spiritual, intellectual and material—and of all prosperity except communal prosperity.
It is largely in this spirit of mutual distrust that we are to-day hampered, right and left, by restrictions and restraints on what ought to be an open and free way of life. I suggest that all political Parties have fallen into the error of legislating for what is the worst in us, instead of for what is the best in us. We protect ourselves against the dishonest opportunist, when we should open our hearts—and open our regulations as well—so that, even if we are momentarily exploited by the unscrupulous, we shall in the long run achieve an hundredfold the blessings of mutual reliance and the confidence that one's neighbour, as well as oneself, is trying to build up a freedom based upon the will to be more and more a reliable and self-contained individual.
I am not impeded by any sense of false modesty in claiming that it was, in fact, the Liberal Party which in the past led the fight for equalisation of the liberties and rights of the people, particularly of this country. Any student of political history knows that then, as now, the Liberal aim has been not to monopolise freedom, not to average it out over the masses, but to upgrade freedom everywhere and at all times. This is neither the time nor the place for a Party political speech, but since so many definitions have been given of what is a Conservative, a Socialist, or a Liberal, may I be permitted to essay just one more definition of a Liberal? I would say that a Liberal is, among other things, one who believes that any British citizen can be a Socialist, or even a Conservative, without necessarily being either civically disloyal or mentally certifiable. I suggest that neither of the other Parties can claim that. With that tribute to my noble friend on the Conservative Benches, Lord Reading, I would add that, in giving my general support to his Resolution—although I am agog to hear from the Government Benches exactly why his Resolution is probably considered to be fantastic—I must express my personal regret that my appearance on these Benches was so closely followed by his, presumably quite coincidental, disappearance to more populous and certainly more illiberal climes.

1345
I have great sympathy with the noble Marquess's Resolution to-day, and also with the sensations of frustration, of claustrophobia, and even of imprisonment, which he doubtless feels in the matter of identity cards. Speaking, as I am, of his imprisonment, and of my loss in not having hair more of his companionship on these Benches, perhaps he will forgive me if I quote four rather remarkable lines from a poem, with which he is doubtless acquainted, known as The Ballad of Reading Gaol, where it is written:
"Like two doomed ships that pass in storm We had crossed each other's way: But we made no sign, we said no word, We had no word to say."
To return to more serious vein, the issue before your Lordships' House this afternoon is, in a sense, one of comparative unimportance, for it is only a detail which we are discussing. But as a detail it is of considerable significance, for not only does it exemplify one of the most peremptory forms of detraction from individuality, but at the same time it labels all of us with a number and a tag, giving us basically the feeling that each one of us is potentially as bad and as untrustworthy as any unapprehended rogue. This is, indeed, a sorry position. Here, my Lords, is a great opportunity for His Majesty's Government to take a risk, if they can possibly do so—to take a generous, sweeping and magnanimous risk—by abolishing this most despicable stigma, as a token that better and more free times are not merely coming in some undefined future, but that, with a little official effort, they can be anticipated almost immediately.
4.45 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I listened carefully to the polemical speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to discover the real objections which he feels to these national identity cards. I must confess that at the end of his speech I was just as puzzled as I was at the beginning. But I can assure the noble Marquess that I enjoyed his speech enormously: the catherine-wheels went round; the jumping crackers jumped; and the rockets rocketed, in the way that we have grown to expect when the noble Marquess addresses us with one of his delightful speeches. However, I do not think we ought to conceal from ourselves that, in spite of these fireworks, the noble Marquess did not produce a single argu-
1346
ment as to any real danger that was caused by the existence of these national identity cards. It was interesting to observe that he put in the forefront of his speech the fact that it was a psychological difficulty. He admitted that the psychological difficulty might be completely irrational, but, nevertheless, he felt that, because some people did not like these national identity cards, they should he abolished.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I did not admit that it was irrational. What I said was that noble Lords opposite might think it was irrational. That is quite a different thing.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Marquess did not produce any arguments to defeat this irrationality. The mere fact that a number of people feel psychologically about something is no proof whatever that it is not a useful thing. I agree that one's instinctive reaction is to dislike anything new—anything in the shape of a national identity card of this kind. But when one tries to think it out on the basis of an attack on civil liberties, which is what I understood was behind the arguments of the noble Marquess, there is really no question at all of civil liberty being involved. The noble Lord who has just addressed us, who was obviously anxious to support the noble Marquess if he could find some grounds on which to do it, said that really it was as a doctrinaire Liberal that he was taking sides with the noble Marquess, and that there was nothing very much in this at all.
What harm does it in fact do to any individual to have to carry about a national identity card? If by chance he forgets it—as in the case of a driving licence, or any other of these documents which one sometimes leaves at home—the police will always be quite reasonable about it, and will give him a few days in which to find and produce it. Or if he has lost it, ire can get it replaced. Surely, all matters of this kind have to be judged in a common-sense way: Where is the harm to the individual? Where is the benefit to the community? I suggest that the noble Marquess has not produced any real argument to show that there is harm to any individual in being asked to carry about an identity card in this way. On

1347
the other hand, there are obviously considerable advantages to the community in all sorts of administrative ways, and in ways that go beyond administration. The noble Marquess likes to pooh-pooh these administrative advantages. It is always possible, especially if one is fortunate enough to possess the noble Marquess's pretty turn of wit, to poke fun at this and that Department. But the Government officials, whom the noble Marquess continually likes to represent as petty tyrants and obscurantists, and that sort of thing, know a great deal more as to where the administrative advantages lie than does the noble Marquess. When one Department after another indicates that there are substantial administrative advantages in keeping these identity cards, I am afraid that I am much more ready to accept their view of the matter than that of the noble Marquess.
I do not propose to go over these particular points of advantage in detail. I will only remind your Lordships that we are already involved in a cold war, and it must be of the greatest advantage to the security services to have these identity cards. I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be better if the duty of the citizen to carry an identity card were established by a new Act of Parliament, one specifically directed to that particular matter, and not maintained under a wartime Statute. But that it very largely a technical problem. I find it difficult to believe that noble Lords opposite who, in the years before the war, were busily engaged on putting on the Statute Book Statutes like the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934, and the Trade Union Act, 1927 (as I am reminded by my noble friend), which were serious infringements of civil liberties, are really so concerned as they make out over this rather trumpery question. I am not so sure that they have not got their eyes on a possible General Election before very long, and are not trying to make political capital out of this comparatively small matter. If, now or at any other time, the noble Marquess can produce any substantial reasons to show that some genuine disability and harm are involved to individual citizens in having to carry identity cards, then I shall be very glad to join up with him.
1348
So far, he has completely failed to convince me that there is any such disability or harm.
4.52 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has failed to convince the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that there is any sound objection against these identity cards, I think I speak for one or two noble Lords sitting on these Benches when I tell Lord Chorley that so far he has failed to convince any of us here why the identity card should be retained. If I may say so with respect, the arguments put forward by him were quite remarkable. If I understood my noble friend Lord Reading correctly, what we are asking for this afternoon is a justification from His Majesty's Govternment for the continuation of these identity cards. I thought that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading—in a speech in which, if I may say so with respect, he excelled his already very high reputation in this House—put forward several perfectly clear points. He mentioned the question of deserters. I was particularly interested to hear him mention that point, because I have myself in your Lordships' House over the last three years regularly asked His Majesty's Government Questions concerning deserters. I have asked how it is that these deserters—some 10,000 I think—manage to exist without identity cards, and I have said no fewer than three times that I thought that that was a good case for doing away with those cards. I have been told on more than one occasion by His Majesty's Government that it is necessary to retain them in order that more deserters may be apprehended. I cannot believe that the figures are going down. I cannot believe that many deserters have been apprehended.
When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, replied to my supplementary question to the Question of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, last week, he remarked that merely because 10,000 people—a very small proportion, he said—in the country get along well without them was no grounds for doing away with them. Surely, that is an entirely fallacious argument. If only one hundred can get away with it, it seems that the system has something inherently wrong in it.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord desires to quote me, will he please quote

1349
me accurately? I did not say what he attributed to me.
LORD HAWKE: What did the noble Lord say?
LORD CALVERLEY: Look it up yourself.
LORD SHEPHERD: All I said, without the qualifications attached by the noble Lord, was that 10,000 compared with millions was a very small figure. There were no trimmings to it.
LORD MANCROFT: Then I apologise to the noble Lord for misquoting him. I will now add the trimmings. It is a very small figure. I would not care if it were one hundred. If one hundred can get along well without identity cards, I should have thought that it was pretty good proof that an identity card is not a necessity for the average man or woman in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, suggested that there might be some objection on the grounds that these cards were something new. But they are not new, and during the war nobody objected because we could see their purpose. In Malaya, the whole community must now carry identity cards, and everyone can see their purpose. We cannot see their purpose here, and that is what we are asking His Majesty's Government to tell us. I must confess that I do not find the possession of an identity card a nuisance to me personally. I do not have to collect my own ration book—that is done for me. I have only once since I have had an identity card ever been asked for it by an official, and he promptly lost it. Therefore, I have no great personal grievance. It is interesting to note that two or three days after the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, put this Motion on tile Order Paper, there appeared a report in the Press—the Daily Mail, I think, to be exact—to the effect that a clergyman had refused to baptise a child who had not an identity card. That child's parents applied for an identity card at the necessary office, and they were refused because the child had not been baptised. If such a ludicrous state of affairs is going to exist, I should have thought that it was a good example of the unnecessary continuation of these documents.
I should like to ask how much manpower and how many man-hours are wasted over the issuing, the checking, the
1350
losing, the going back home to collect and bringing back to find the office shut, and all the other paraphernalia. When I look at my identity card, the chief thing that strikes me about it is that it is not an identity card at all. Your passport is, and your passport asks somebody to give you aid if you are in trouble. None of us regards his identity card as asking anybody to give him aid. These cards merely cause us nuisance and inconvenience. I read in the paper yesterday that it has been decided in another place that a passport is not one's own possession—it belongs to His Majesty's Government. Who owns one's identity card? The late Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, in his blunt and sensible way, once remarked that his foreign policy was to be able to go down to Victoria Station and buy a ticket to any place he liked and to go there without a passport. If Mr. Ernest Bevin were alive to-day, I believe he could not legally take a three penny bus ticket to Piccadilly Circus without having on him his identity card. It is a ludicrous situalion.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, talked about administrative convenience. That is what is really at the back of most of the objections levelled against this system by noble Lords on this side. It is the feeling that this is for the convenience of "the gentleman in Whitehall" and not for the convenience of the man in the street. If there were no identity cards, I am certain that somebody would in due course improperly obtain possession of a ration book. I cannot feel that a few ration books, improperly obtained, would outweigh all this paraphernalia for which so far we have been given no justification. In conclusion, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who is to reply, to convince the House that these cards are not retained purely for the benefit of the administrator, but are maintained for the benefit of those who are administrated.
4.58 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, the operative word in this Resolution is the word "oppressive," and we might as well get back to it and ask if we are being oppressed. In listening to the really brilliant speech of the noble Marquess, I almost thought I was being oppressed and that it was about time I struck out for

1351
liberty. I hope that the Liberal Party are sufficiently grateful to the noble Marquess for bringing this question before the House. About three or four years ago the noble Marquess made an equally brilliant speech at a Liberal Summer School, I think at Oxford. I have met a fair number of Liberals in my circle of friends and they were full of admiration for the noble Marquess. If he will allow me to say so, and if I may be permitted to use a colloquialism, they said that he was a "star turn," and the "top of the bill." He certainly almost dazzled us by his eloquence, and almost persuaded us that we were in danger of getting back to the state of being an oppressed nation
I suppose I am about the only member of your Lordships' House who is personally acquainted with the man who was the cause of this question coming into prominence, either in this House or in the Press —or, indeed, anywhere else. He was a neighbour of mine; he lived very close to me; he was an urban district Councillor, subsequently becoming chairman of the council and thus a magistrate, having to swear a solemn oath to administer the law without fear or favour. In his own community he, like myself, had never been asked for his identity card. I doubt whether there are many members of your Lordships' House who have ever been asked for theirs. When this man came to London he, like many others, was lost in a crowd, and on a certain occasion he was asked for his identity card. Like myself and many others, he had never read the instructions on the back of the card, and therefore did not know that he was liable to be asked for it by a policeman in uniform or by a member of His Majesty's Forces—I suppose a military policeman. I must say I did not realise that; and I did not feel oppressed. I am certain that there are 45,500,000 people in this country who do not feel oppressed.
I think that my friend, who now lives in London, performed a public duty—though like most Yorkshire men he was perhaps a little mulish in his method of refusing to accede to the request for his identity card. Had I been asked for mine. I should have had to say "I am sorry: I have not got it." My friend was asked whether he would produce the card at some convenient police station—this was
1352
in accordance with the law passed by a Conservative Government. Again he refused, and a police officer, very courteously, took the trouble to go to his house and ask him for it. Again he refused; and so my former neighbour became one of sixty-one persons in the country to be prosecuted for refusing to produce his identity card. Of these sixty-one throughout the British Isles, there are three in the Metropolitan area, and my friend is one of them. At first my friend wanted to be a martyr, and then he found he was going to be a hero. It is a delight to many to know that money to pay his fine has been flowing in abundantly. I believe that in the National Liberal Club they were able to have a "real good do" in entertaining my friend. I suggested that they should commission Sir Alfred Munnings to paint a portrait of him sitting on a horse. I come back to the operative word, "oppressed." I have tried to point out that I myself do not feel oppressed and I am certain that there are very few who do. I believe that the Court of Appeal performed a public service in requesting the attendance of the Attorney-General and other distinguished lawyers to go into the matter. As a result, it was confirmed that this Conservative Act of Parliament is still the law. I believe that the fine was 4s. in the first instance. The second time it may be a little more; but, as I have said, money is still flowing in freely.
Now as to the uses of the identity card. Are there any uses? The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has referred to the case of deserters. I had some experience of this matter between the years 1940 and 1949. I think it was the noble Marquess who asked whether these people starve. I can tell him that they do not starve. I know of one case, in which I was requested to go to a certain house, where I found that the husband and father had been there in hiding for weeks; his wife, at her wits' end, said in her homely way: "He eats us out of house and home." There are many cases like that within my personal experience. That wife told me that she was obliged, in her own interests, to go to the police and ask them to take her husband. I refused to say anything, since she had spoken to me in confidence. I was, I suppose, conniving at a felony—but I am afraid that I do not very much care. And I repeat that I do not feel oppressed or depressed.

1353
But there are new uses for the identity card. In the north of England we have what are called "Wakes Weeks." Thanks to the Labour Party's implementing its programme, there are nearly 20,000,000 people who can go on holiday once a year with pay. These people are able to collect the money from their firms, even when they have left their employment, by producing their identity cards. Even if they have changed their jobs—and let me emphasise that they are not being directed to other jobs—they can go to the firm whose empty they have left to collect the money. They are asked to bring their identity card, merely because that is a convenient method. They are not asked to bring a birth certificate, or anything else, for the purpose of collecting their money. That seems to me to be a very simple way, and it is done without the interference of any oppressive bureaucrats from Whitehall. It is a simple and straightforward way, free of red tape, for these people to pick up the money due to them after they have left the employment of a particular firm. The identity card has been the foundation of the method by which we collect our ration cards. I confess that I see my identity card only once a year, when I go for my ration cards, but it is a convenient way of doing it. Again, I do not feel particularly depressed about it.
The identity card now has only minor uses—I grant that to the other side—compared with the major uses that it had when war broke out in 1939; but the trouble now is that we have infected the United States of America with them. They now hive identity cards, only they do not give them to babies. There, a person has to be eighteen years of age before he has an identity card. One reason for introducing them there was so that they could indulge in wider "witch-hunting." So far as we ourselves are concerned, there are still uses for the identity card, but that does not mean to say that I have Any love for restrictions. I do not particularly care for red tape or anything of that kind—I do not know much about it. There is another phase of our communal life which I do not like, and that is the irresponsible liberty (which I call licence) which some people take to excess. I try to remember on occasion what I used to read as a devotee of Thomas Carlyle. I believe that somewhere he said this: that you can
1354
enjoy true and wide liberty only if you learn to practise restraint upon yourselves. Unless you do that, you cannot get true freedom. I personally am grateful to the noble Marquess for introducing this Resolution. I have no doubt that he, like the Court of Appeal, has performed a public service, because in the provinces we have never realised that we were going to be bothered about our identity cards, and in the Metropolitan districts it seems that very few such cases arise. There have been only three. Perhaps the noble Marquess might care to put down a Question on the subject. I have done a bit of research in preparing my endeavour to counter the speech of the noble Marquess, but I feel that I have failed. My final words are these: that, if His Majesty's Government can abolish this Conservative regulation, and even annul the whole Act, there will be nobody more inclined than myself to sing the Magnificat.
5.13 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, you probably would not expect me to take any general part in this debate, especially as this matter arises after a decision of the Court in which I was concerned, but, after hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I desire, at any rate, to say this: that I understand that the objection to national registration cards is that the Act is being used for a purpose for which it was never intended to be used. It was passed as a security Act; it is being used for general administrative purposes. It was passed as a temporary Act, and it is being retained as a permanent Act. As I ventured to say at the conclusion of my judgment in the case of which your Lordships know, if the police (and, I would add, the Departments) want further powers, let them come to Parliament and ask for them; but do not use an Act which was passed as a security Act for general administrative purposes.
I do not wish to say anything more about the general subject of the debate, but I should like to say this. The noble Marquess mentioned the fact that Post Office crimes do not seem to be stopped by these identity cards. I can support the noble Marquess's statement in a remarkable degree. When I became Lord Chief Justice in 1946, there was no offence more common at the

1355
Assizes than the offence of getting £3 on demand from the Post Office. I was told that the Post Office were losing many thousands of pounds a year (I was told at one time about £200,000 a year) by frauds on the Post Office Savings Bank. Every person who makes use of that facility of producing his Savings Bank book and asking for £3 on demand, has also to produce his identity card. So far as I can make out, the identity card offered no protection at all. Why, I cannot tell you, but it did not. Over and over again we had people before us who, before they were caught, had committed this offence fifty or sixty, and in one case I remember, eighty-four, times. These men had gone to the Post Office and produced a book, probably forging the book as well by increasing the figures in it, so that instead of no balance appearing on the credit side there appeared £100 or something like that. They produced the book, showing an identity card, and getting away with the money. So far as I know, although I cannot dogmatise about it, in the great majority of cases the identity card formed no part of the reason for a man being arrested. He was generally caught because at long last some young woman in the Post Office took the trouble to compare the signature on the withdrawal request form with the signature in the Post Office Savings book. The identity card contributed nothing at all to the arrest.
Another case that was brought to my notice the other day was that of a man who had lost his identity card and went to the appropriate office (I think it was the food office) to get a new one. Having obtained a new one without any trouble, he said he wanted to change his name. He was told: "You should go through that door to do that." He went through the door, and apparently changed his name. The identity number remained the same, but whether he changed his identity as well as his name I do not know. I leave that to the philosopher. For these reasons, I support the Resolution of the noble Marquess, because it seems to me that, if the many useful purposes which it is said the identity card fulfils are necessary, the Departments concerned ought to ask Parliament to give them the necessary powers. They ought not to use
1356
a security Act for merely administrative purposes.
5.19 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, from a personal point of view, I am perfectly prepared to put up with any restraint or any inconvenience if I can be convinced that some useful purpose is served for the State; but I am not at all convinced that it is so in the case of identity cards. I confess that I dislike the whole idea of identity cards. I think there is something un-English about them. They are rather in keeping with certain authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies which we notice to-day. It is no use telling us that such tendencies do not exist, because one very distinguished Socialist has gone on record as saying that there are good things in the Russian system which we might with advantage borrow here. Another highly intellectual Socialist, if I recollect aright, advocated that, when the Labour Government came to be formed, their first act should be to pass an enabling Bill, and that Parliament should then adjourn leaving a "Star Chamber" Government to make the laws and conduct the business of the country. When, indeed, a Government was formed in 1945, a Minister—and, of all Ministers, a Law Officer of the Crown—said:
"We are the masters now."
Those are not tendencies which I like. I know of nothing in the Russian system which I wish to see adopted in this country. I wish Parliament, and not the Government unassisted by Parliament, to continue to make the laws of the country; and I wish Ministers to remember that they are servants of the Crown and of the country, and not anybody's "masters."
There is only one point with which I wish to deal because time is running on. That is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who, if I heard him aright, said that the individual suffers no inconvenience through having to carry an identity card. It is perfectly true that one suffers not the slightest inconvenience from carrying it about. But surely it is completely erroneous to suppose that the possibility of inconvenience settles the question of whether or not there is an interference with the liberty of the subject. In that connection, if I may be allowed to do so. I venture to quote an experience of my own, not connected with an identity card. One of our chief constables sent

1357
an officer to my house, and he took away a piece of my property. I was given no notice that this was to be done; I was not given notice that it had been done. I found it cut only by accident. I suffered no inconvenience of any sort from that action. If the chief constable had written and asked me for that piece of property I should have been delighted to give it to him, or to place it in his keeping, or do anything that he liked to suggest. I suffered no personal inconvenience at all, but I took the view that this was a grave incursion upon the liberty of the subject. I wrote to the Home Secretary about it, and I regret to say that I received no assistance from hint in the matter. But at the same time I took the precaution to write to my lawyers, who did extract from the chief constable a slightly inadequate and ungracious apology—but at any rate it was an apology—for having done what he did.
I quote that incident only to show that the question of inconvenience is not bound up with that of liberty. I think that what that chief constable did was a grave attack upon the liberty of the individual, although, as I say, this particular individual suffered no inconvenience whatsoever from his action. But I feel that it is such things as the use of identity cards and other modern methods and tendencies which encourage officials to act in this way, whereas of their own nature, in the old days, they were always courteous and would never have dreamt of doing what that chief constable did. Again, I cannot help thinking of the great number of Government Departments which are now entitled to send officials into one's home, without giving any notice whatsoever, and with no warrant. Therefore I feel that, though it may be not a matter of the first order of importance, and although one may not suffer much inconvenience from it, this question of identity cards, and so on, does want watching very carefully indeed. In spite of what I feel about what at first hearing one would say was the completely devastating speech of the noble Marquess, at the moment I keep an open mind in this matter. But what I hope to heat from the noble Lord who is replying on behalf of the Government is first of all, what actual benefit to the State is promoted by the identity card. Secondly, I should like to hear what
1358
specific evil would result to the State and to the community if identity cards were abolished. When I Lear the answers to those questions, if indeed I am fortunate enough to hear them, then I shall be able to make up my mind.
5.25 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the terms of the Resolution itself— namely:
"That in present conditions the use of identity cards is unnecesary and oppressive, and should be discontinued without delay."
If it were not for the last phrase in that sentence, I should feel very much inclined to vote for the Resolution, but I cannot feel that to discontinue the use of identity cards without delay a practical proposition. Therefore I shall go into the Lobby this time in favour of my own Party. I feel that your Lordships' House is a Chamber where, upon occasion, we can discuss in an impartial manner, dispassionately and without Party spleen or even Party discipline, questions that involve fundamental considerations. I feel that I should express my own view, which is against that of the Government upon this particular Resolution. I do not think this is a matter of major importance at the present moment, and certainly, as I say, it may not be practicable at this time to discontinue "without delay" the use of identity cards. But when I hear my noble friend Lord Chorley, and others, talk at large about the administrative efficiency of identity cards, and things of that character, I cannot help recalling that that is just the type of argument which was used in Germany and France as a justification for many of the enormities of the concentration camp: that it was administratively necessary, and that administrative efficiency was more important than the liberty of the subject.
My Lords, it is not at all a question of administrative efficiency. One of those imponderable questions that lie behind the objection which I and others might advance to the continued use of identity cards at the present time is the question of human liberty. We have had at least two generations brought up and trained in complete ignorance of these things. I am appalled at times to find how many members of the new generations really think that you are speaking a foreign language if you talk to them in terms that were understood in my early

1359
days. John Stuart Mill is out of date, and the great leaders of human freedom are assumed to be not practical persons. It is said that we live in a machine and a practical age and, therefore, that the final test is one of administrative efficiency. I do not believe that. It is like the question of full employment. Everyone knows that if there had not been two wars there would not be full employment to-day, and that if you wanted full employment in normal times the best place to find it would be in Dartmoor.
The most efficient instrument existing to-day is, I suppose, a battleship. It is highly efficient because, if you do not do as you are told, and resort to back, answers, you are put in chains. In other words, it is impossible to have 100 per cent. efficiency and 100 per cent. human liberty at one and the same time. You have to make your choice between how much efficiency you want and how much liberty you want. I am afraid that I tend towards liberty, rather than towards efficiency. Within the compass of liberty, I want to be as efficient as possible, and I want as streamlined a basis as I can secure; but I do not want a chromium-plated, streamlined land of human slavery. I agree with Lord Winster that there are many tendencies in that direction at the present time. Like the Irishman in relation to the Government, "I am agin it." I shall vote against this Resolution only in so far as I think it is wrongly worded.
5.30 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think we were all impressed with the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. After all his long service to his Party, he was, despite his decision to vote with them in the Lobby if this Motion should come to a vote, against them in this matter. On a question such as that raised in the Resolution, I think it is well to look back to the beginnings, and I have taken the trouble to look up the Reports of the debates in this House and also in another place, where I happened to be at the time when the National Registration Bill was going through Parliament. In this House, the late Duke of Devonshire, who was then a member of the Government, explained the primary reason for the scheme of national registration and identity cards in this way. He said:
1360
"Perhaps it is not generally realised that the only population statistics available now are those of the last census which took place in 1931."
He was speaking in 1939.
"The object of this Bill is to substitute for those out-of-date figures complete and up-to-date population statistics."
If that was the main reason then, it cannot be the main reason to-day, because only a month or two ago a new census was taken in this country.
Another reason which is sometimes put forward for retaining these identity cards—and it is the one with which I am primarily concerned to-day—is that a system of food rationing cannot be operated without such cards. The noble Lord, Lord Calverley, said: "I see my identity card only once a year, when I go for a new ration book." And, indeed, that is the only time when most citizens of this country use their identity cards. Now—as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has reminded us—we had rationing in the First World War, and it was carried on without any identity cards at all. When the National Registration Bill was going through the House of Commons on September 4, 1939, Mr. Lees-Smith, whom many of us remember as a Member of that House, asked Mr. Walter Elliot, who was then Minister of Health, whether the delay in getting out identity cards—because there had to be some delay—would postpone any rationing which might be necessary. Mr. Walter Elliot replied:
"I can give this assurance now. If necessary, part rationing can take place before the date when the Register is completed."
So let us all recognise that it was not in the minds of any of His Majesty's Ministers at that time that the National Registration Act was necessary before rationing could take place, and that that assurance was given to Mr. Lees-Smith in the House of Commons. Indeed, it is within my own knowledge that the food defence plans department which was working at the Board of Trade on the food rationing schemes before the war, had no idea of using identity cards in order to bring food rationing into operation. So I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply to-day will not say that that is a reason for continuing these identity cards. Frankly, it is not, and it never has been.

1361
One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Reading—read to us to-day a letter from someone who lost his identity card. I lost my own identity card some time ago, and it was quite a delightful experience getting a new one. A most charming young lady dealt with my application. It is true that I had to fill in a form, but it was not such an elaborate form as one usually has to complete. It is also true that I had to pay a small amount to cover the costs of the Department in providing me with the new identity card. But nothing else was required at all, and in due course my new identity card came along. I am now told that I am liable to quite a heavy penalty if I should find my old one and fail to return it. Of course, someone else may have it—I do not know. But what I have described is all that happened. It was then very near the time for the issue of new ration books. Whether it was on account of the fact that I am a member of your Lordships' House, or, perhaps, because I happen to be an ex-Minister of Food, I cannot say, but at any rate, a new ration book was issued to me without an identity card being produced, on my undertaking that as soon as I received the new card I would produce it at the food office. At any rate, it is certainly not essential to have an identity card for any food rationing purposes.
I was surprised at the inquiry made by Lord Chorley. He asked: "Is any real danger caused by the presence of these identity cards?" Surely, that is not the question. The question is: Is there any good purpose served by having to have identity cards? Frankly, I do not agree that there is. The identity card, when used to withdraw money from the Post Office, is, I believe, a danger rather than an asset. The woman or the man behind the counter tends merely to compare the name on the book with the name on the identity card and, having done that, possibly forgets the far more important matter which is to compare the signature on the withdrawal form with the signature on the Post Office Savings book. That is the important thing for the officer to do. If the officer has something else to do, besides comparing the signature on the notice and that on the Savings Book, it is not unlikely that he or she will forget the more important process before paying out the money. Therefore, in
1362
order to help to present fraud, I would prohibit identity cards being produced when money is drawn from the Post Office Savings Bank, for, as I suggest, the result would be that the officers would then be able to concentrate on their important function of comparing the two. signatures—which, after all, is the only real check.
I do not see why we go on making people, in theory, carry these identity cards about. Before the war, we had freedom to go about without an identity card, and we ought to have that freedom now. If the noble Lord has the figure with him, I should like to hear some facts on the practical side. For instance, how many people are concerned with the issuing of these identity cards, with the replacing of lost ones, with the filling up of new ones and, generally, with the whole paraphernalia that is necessary for our 48,000,000 people—or whatever the population is? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking around for sources of saving or of new revenue. I am told that there was some reference to it in your Lordships' House yesterday, when, unfortunately, I was unable to be present. It was mentioned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is raiding part of the B.B.C. funds in order to get a little more money for the Exchequer. Would it not be a good thing sometimes for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look around to see where he could save a little? Here is something on which he could save both money and paper, which is a material in short supply. He may not save a great quantity of paper, but when the Government are asking other people to save, and to economise in the use of man-power and materials, I believe the Government should occasionally give a lead.
Determined Ministers could overrule all the alleged administrative advantages which are said to accrue from the use of identity cards. These have obviously failed in the case of deserters. These men have not been found because they lacked identity cards. They seem to be fed like other people, in spite of their lack of identity cards. I do not see that identity cards arc of any advantage whatsoever from the security point of view. The person who is a menace to this country will be the one person who has his identity card absolutely in order. It

1363
is the ordinary people, like ourselves, who may be found without identity cards or who have lost them. I ask the Government to say that they will cease as soon as possible the stupidity of insisting on identity cards, and so save a certain amount of money, man-power and materials, and restore to us one of the freedoms we formerly had.
5.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I had better start what I hope will be a practical speech by again reminding your Lordships of the view of the Government upon this matter. If I fail to do that, then I am afraid it will be impossible to meet many of the statements made to-day about the Government, about the Administration, and about the administrative requirements of Ministries. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, put a Question to me on July 4. It was:
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will now abolish the use of identity cards…"
The reply which I gave on behalf of the Government was as follows:
"The Government could not at once do away with identity cards. I would, however, draw the attention of your Lordships to a statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place last week. In that statement he said: The emergency legislation still in force is already kept under review, so that powers which are no longer required may be relinquished without delay.'"
I hope it will be felt on the other side, from the varied views expressed this afternoon by my noble friends behind me, that the Government were not too far away from their views. The Government have the emergency legislation
"under review, so that powers which are no longer required may be relinquished without delay."
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, is the noble Lord going to read the supplementary question and answer?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will read the supplementary question, but I am afraid the noble Marquess has not read it. The supplementary question of the noble Marquess was as follows:
"May I take it, from the second part of the noble Lord's answer, that there is no prospect, in the foreseeable future, of these objects being removed from circulation?"
1364
The first quotation I made was from the first part of the noble Marquess's Question, and the reply I gave was in reply to the first part of the Question, while the noble Marquess's supplementary was in reference to the second part of my reply.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the whole point of my supplementary, in view of the extremely vague terms used by the noble Lord as regards time, was to see whether there was any prospect "in the foreseeable future." To that the noble Lord assented.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Marquess did not put his questionin that form. The noble Marquess's question is quite clear and distinct in the OFFICIAL REPORT in col. 576:
"May I take it from the second part of the noble Lord's answer that there is no prospect, in the foreseeable future, of these objects being removed from circulation?"
My reply had reference to the second part of my original reply.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, does the noble Lord really say that when I used the expression "these objects being removed from circulation" he did not understand that I was referring to the withdrawal of identity cards?
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Marquess said, quite expressly, in his supplementary, that his reference was to the second part of my answer, and I concluded that the objects mentioned were concerned therewith.
The noble Marquess quoted a reference to a speech made by my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, contained in a letter by Mr. Attlee to Mr. Clement Davies of July 4:
"It is quite true"—
said the Prime Minister—
"that the Home Secretary said that he was one of those who hoped that national registration and the identity card would be temporary, but he also made it quite clear that he did not contemplate that the Minister of Health could bring in a Bill to abolish them in the near future."
So it would seem that the Home Secretary, who has been quoted by the noble Marquess, thinks on lines similar to those of the Prime Minister, and to the answer which I myself gave to the noble Marquess's Question.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he is getting what I said so wrong that I mutt intervene. The sentence I quoted from Mr. Chuter Ede was not on the administrative but on the psychological aspect of this matter. What I said was that Mr. Chuter Ede had sustained what was said in the original discussion, but that, at a later date, he said the retention of the identity card was alien to the British way of life—he said nothing at all about what the noble Lord is now quoting.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Marquess quoted Mr. Chuter Ede for the purpose of compelling the Government to withdraw identity cards. What I am trying to do is to give, from the Prime Minister's letter, an indication that, although Mr. Chuter Ede hoped we would not continue with identity cards for a long time, Mr. Chuter Ede did not at that time give any indication that there would be a speedy withdrawal.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I never said he did.
LORD SHEPHERD: No. But I want to point out that what Mr. Chuter Ede has said dues not distinguish him from the Prime Minister.
Now may I come to the Resolution itself, to which I propose to devote most of my somewhat short speech? Incidentally I may pick out one or two points that have been made by noble Lords, but I hope that, in making my speech in my own way, I shall be able to cover most of the points that have been raised. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has moved to resolve,
"That in present conditions the use of identity cards is unnecessary and oppressive, and should be discontinued without delay."
I want to take up the first point—"in present conditions." I have listened most carefully to-day for a description of the "present conditions" mentioned in the Resolution, and all I can recall is that prior to the war we passed some emergency legislation; that the emergency has now passed; that the war against Germany is Jeclared to be over; and that therefore the way is free. I do not think that is an unfair way of describing the conditions as foreshadowed in the Resolution. All I can say to your Lord
1366
ships is that the conditions which we have in view, which compel the Government to retain these cards, are very different indeed.
May I be permitted briefly to go through them? We have become committed to the Brussels Treaty; we have become committed to the Council of Europe; we have become committed to the Atlantic Treaty; and we now have in the making a European army, a European navy and a European air force. Each one of these Treaties and activities has placed upon the Government of the country, and its people, not merely great responsibilities, but very grave duties indeed. We are faced with deliberate attempts to prevent the conclusion of treaties both with the Germans and with the Austrians. Our soldiers are standing on lines adjacent to those of other Powers, and those treaties still need to be made. The avoidance of treaty decisions with the other countries of Eastern Europe has led to a great increase of armaments in those countries. Now we find an Iron Curtain surrounding the countries which have become subservient to dictatorship, and introducing into the countries that are still free fifth columns of all kinds. The conditions in which we are now living are not those of peace; they are not those of demobilisation. The conditions in which we are now living, and in which we make our preparations, are not in readiness for a disarmament conference. When noble Lords remember those things, they will recall many debates in your Lordships' House pressing the Government to be quicker and ever quicker, because, it was said, time was the essence of the thing. We are living, in my opinion, in a time of great emergency; we are living in dangerous times. When we consider the identity card and, what is more important still, national registration, we must link the two with those conditions.
I want to bring home to noble Lords who have complained about the identity card one of the principal reasons which have compelled the Government to retain it. We have built up, and are now in the course of developing, a greatly increased Army, Navy and Air Force and we are building up those forces on the basis of compulsory service. To enable that service to be successful, it is essential that there should be a National Register, so

1367
that recruitment into the Forces shall be properly checked. Not a single noble Lord to-day has expressed any view about the National Register; and not a single noble Lord has suggested that the National Register should be abolished. The noble Lord who has come nearest to it is the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who suggested that maybe we could have an Act by which it could be put into abeyance for the time being, but could be brought out if necessary. But the National Register, if it is to be of use, cannot be put into cold storage. A National Register, if it is to be of assistance, must be kept up to date from week to week, or even from day to day. If the National Register is not kept up to date in that way, then in a case of emergency it will not be of the slightest use.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to the fact that, when the measure providing for a National Register and identity cards was first introduced, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, stated that it was required because it was a long time since there had been a census. According to Lord Llewellin, as we have had a recent census (if I may say so, inferentially) probably there is no reason why we should continue with the National Register. I will not press the noble Lord to reply to that, because I should like him to think about it before he expresses an opinion. But noble Lords ought to understand that a census of the population, which on a given day gives the full facts on that day, ceases to give the facts fully on the next day and every day that follows. If, for instance, there was living with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, a young man of twenty-three or twenty-four years of age, who registered for the census on the appropriate day, his name and particulars would remain registered as at the noble Lord's house. But if, on the following day, the young man transferred from Lord Llewellin's house to my house, then, so far as the census is concerned, there would be no recognition of the fact at all. The National Register is a document of a different character.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us how the possession in the young man's pocket of an identity card would help.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am coming to that; I do not want to avoid it, because I want to be quite frank. The census, as I have said, would be silent, and for all national purposes it would cease to be worth-while in respect of that young man. But under the National Register, when Lord Llewellin's young man comes to me, he will require a food card for my address. He will take his old ration book to the food office in my district; he will take with him his identity card, and not only will alterations be made at the food office issuing the new ration card, but the change of his address and so on, are despatched immediately to the National Register. Therefore, the presence of that young man in my house is added very speedily into the National Register; and, so far as that young man is concerned, the National Register remains effective. I am not quoting any Minister, and I am not quoting any bureaucrat. I am quoting the Registrar-General for England and, Wales. He assures me that if the identity card were done away with, which would prevent the information on the identity card being given to the food office, that would mean that there would be no further transfers to him in respect of his Register, and, consequently, unless other efforts were made to keep the Register up to date, it would die.
LORD LLEWELLIN: How does the noble Lord make that contention—because in front of all our ration books is our national registration number, without the identity card at all?
LORD SHEPHERD: We have had several references to-day to the illicit sale of ration books. It has been suggested that they can be forged. There is a safeguard, for the mere handing over of a ration book to the food office is insufficient. Together with the ration book which is being returned, the food office must have the identity card as well, because it is the identity card which contains the particulars and also the signature of the person concerned. That is the Registrar-General's assurance. He says that if this Register were to be placed into cold storage it would die, and if later an emergency arose in the sense that it did formerly, and we wanted a new Register, it would take about twelve months before it could be compiled. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has given an example—or at least I think it was he—

1369
when he said that in so far as food rationing began when he was at the Ministry, the food ration cards could be issued before the National Register became effective. Therefore, the real importance of this issue is that the identity card is a means by which a great public function is performed—namely, that of keeping the National Register in being so that it may be effective for all national purposes which depend upon it.
A question was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I see that he has gone, but his point was of interest, and perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning it. He wanted to know what effect the continuance of the identity cards would have upon the Forces what would hap? pen if no Register existed. I have been given one or two particulars about this which meet the case. Your Lordships know that under the military service arrangements calling up is done by means of Proclamation. Those who are public spirited, loyal and enthusiastic, come readily to the call. But it is a known fact that a substantial number of men hesitate and do not obey the call of the Proclamation. The military authorities have access to the National Register, and steps are then taken to bring in those who have been lagging. I am assured that during the last two or three years the number of men who have been brought into the Forces by means of the National Register itself is of the order of 10,000. That is a pretty considerable number, but there must be added to that an unknown number of those who, because of these circumstances, brought about by the check, feel compelled to obey the summons, ever though they do not do so willingly. I am even assured that the effect of the National Register during the last war period meant that 500,000 women were brought into National Service of cue kind or another who would have escaped National Service if it had depended on a purely voluntary call.
I should like to say one word about the effect of the National Register on the Health Services, because the noble Marquess, in opening his speech, expressed the view that the Health Services could get on quite well without such a Register. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Marquess also mentioned that the Minister of Health recently caused a circular to be sent round to
1370
doctors asking for returns. I am assured by the Minister of Health that if it were not for the National Register he would be compelled to compile a register of his own. The index which he now uses is taken from the National Register, and for that reason it is of great service to him. The particular purpose for which it is new being used is one of importance in view of the recent Motion of the noble Marquess about the cost of the Hospital Services and the like. The National Register, having supplied the central index for the Minister of Health, is now being used to prevent duplicate appointments to doctors' lists. If there were no Register and no registered number, it would be possible for a man in the locality to be registered with a number of doctors. If that were the case and it were allowed to continue, a number of doctors would be drawing a capitation fee in respect of the same man. But as the appointment of a doctor bears the registered number of the person making the appointment, by that means duplications in the localities can be eliminated. The Minister, hoping to carry out some of the views expressed by your Lordships in past debates, is trying to scale down the costs and is using the National Register for that purpose. He is not depriving doctors of their rights, but is preventing the Exchequer from having to pay more than is properly due in capitation fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke of a baby who could not have an identity card until it had been baptised. What the writer in the Daily Mail said was:
"The vicar refused to christen the child until its identity card had been produced. The parents contended that it could not have a card until it had a name."
Actually, a baby can have an identity card as soon as its birth has been registered, and its birth can be registered before it has been christened. Those are the facts about the case which appeared in the Daily Mail. There have been other cases of that kind in recent correspondence, and it is a matter of great regret to me that newspapers, and sometimes men of eminence, repeat things which they believe have happened or which someone has told them have happened and even give public expression to them without producing the slightest evidence.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD SHEPHERD: In these matters we would wish that noble Lords would avoid quoting some of these cases which have appeared in the Press without them-selves having tested the truth of them.
I want to say a word about food rationing before I conclude. It has been said that the National Register, and the identity cards and the measure under which they are used, ought not to be used for purposes other than those previously intended. Food rationing remains with us from the last war, and I think it can be fairly assumed that because of the continuance of food rationing—which the Party opposite do not propose to disturb—it should, perfectly legitimately, have some relation to the National Register. The National Register should definitely be used for the purpose of keeping food rationing in order. Both Parties believe in food rationing because of the food shortage. Both believe in food rationing because they believe in fair shares; and both, therefore, will be interested in seeing that, if it can possibly be avoided, no one shall have two ration books. The regulations under which food rationing takes place, by insisting on the use of the identity card, are that people cannot have a food rationing book except in the area in which they are registered for national purposes. It therefore means that if they try in that area to secure two or three or four ration books, their attempts will be discovered and action can be taken against them. To-day the food office is using the National Register, not for the purpose of cheating people out of their rights, but for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the taxpayers' burden and also for the purpose of avoiding unfair practices. In view of what I have said with regard to food rationing, to National Service and to the National Register, I hope that the House will take the view that the Government, in saying that they are going for the time being to stick to the National Register and the identity card, are nevertheless watching the circumstances as they change and will get rid of emergency legislation when the opportunity presents itself.
6.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord has just delivered himself of an interesting and informative speech in so far as it has given for the retention of the identity card almost entirely different reasons from those he gave
1372
some three weeks ago. But we are always willing to learn. It interested to hear Lord Chorley dismiss this Motion and the whole question of the identity card as "trumpery"—a view which seemed to gain some support from the Front Bench before him. As I said in opening this debate, I can understand their regarding it as "trumpery." But if it be so "trumpery," I wonder why the noble Lord began his speech in reply on behalf of the Government with a review of our foreign treaty obligations, some general observations on our defence programme, and a few other not altogether trumpery matters of that kind, which for some reason he seemed to think were brought into the purview of this debate on identity cards. During the rest of his speech he made a great point of the necessity to retain identity cards, otherwise there would have to be special provisions for a National Health register. I have a vague recollection that there was in this country some form of National Insurance, including National Health Insurance, as long ago as the year 1910, and that it has existed ever since; and between 1910 and 1939 no one seemed to have insuperable difficulty in tracing the people whom they wanted, or in being satisfied that the person whose case they were considering was, in fact, the person he claimed to be.
The noble Lord, from the beginning to the end of his speech, made no reference to the two points which I endeavoured—apparently unsuccessfully—to bring home to him in my opening remarks. The first point was that these powers were being used for an entirely different purpose from those for which they had been intended by Parliament and for which they had been approved by the country. The second—which, indeed, he admitted in almost every sentence of his speech—was that these powers were being used for administrative convenience.
LORD SHEPHERD: Will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt? That is a complete exaggeration of what I said. What I said was that the Minister of Health was using not the identity card but the National Register for administrative purposes. I said that the same thing was being done by the Food Ministry. I indicated that the identity card was being used for the purpose of securing the information, and I hope the noble Marquess will realise that that is a matter of very great importance indeed.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: What I do realise is that the noble Lord does not appear to know the difference between the National Register and an identity card.
LORD SHEPHERD: Really!
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, really. The third point I was entitled to make was that if the Government required these exceptional powers—granted during an emergency—for the purpose of their administrative convenience, they ought to come to Parliament and ask for them.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Marquess give way again? If those are his views, why are they not in the Motion, instead of the proposals which do appear there?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Because it is a Motion and not a treatise
Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland)
on constitutional law. I am sorry the noble Lord is suffering such great agony from my remarks, but I must be allowed to put the Motion as I think. The Motion is, I believe, perfectly clear, and if I choose in the course of the debate make and press the point that the Government ought to come to Parliament if they want those powers renewed, is the noble Lord going to tell me that I am not entitled to do so? If so, that is a very strange notion. It may be the noble Lord's notion but it is none the less a strange notion of the conduct of a Parliamentary debate. I regard the noble Lord's answer as completely unsatisfactory and I shall ask your Lordships to express your views on my Motion.
On Question, Whether the said Resolution shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Reading, M.

Maugham, V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Hawke, L.

Willingdon, M.

Samuel, V.

Killearn, L.

Simon, V.

Llewellin, L.

Albemarle, E.

Swinton, V.

Lloyd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Trenchard, V.

Mancroft, L.

De La Warr, E.

Monkswell, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ilchester, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Rea, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rochdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.[Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Radnor, E.

Clanwilliam, L.(E.Clanwilliam.)

Saltoun, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Sempill, L.

Ypres, E.

Derwent, L.

Stanmore, L.

Dorchester, L.

Teviot, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Falmouth, V.

Gifford, L.

Waleran, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gorell, L.

Wolverton, L.

Furness, V.

NON-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Calverley, L.

MacEntee, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Chorley, L.

Marley, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Stangate, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Kenswood, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Williams, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Braintree, L.

Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

MINERAL WORKINGS BILL
6.28 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as a result of conversations which have

1375
taken place since the adjournment of the Report stage of this Bill, I beg to move that in line 4, of subsection (3) of the proposed new clause to follow Clause 26, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, there should be inserted after "prices," the words "of land." The object of this Amendment is to ensure that it is recognised in the interpretation of this clause that the prices refer to the prices of land, and not to the prices of restoration or any other matter. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
In subsection (3), line 4, after ("prices") insert ("of land").—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has pointed out, this Amendment to my Amendment and the next are agreed. I am pleased to accept them.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that in line 6, of the proposed new subsection (3), we delete the words from "restored" down to the second "the" in line 7, and insert in their place "to the extent contemplated in." The object of this Amendment is to include within the scope of this clause those cases where the lease does not contain a specific covenant on the lessee to restore the land. Perhaps I may be allowed here to thank the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, for the way in which he has met these two points. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
In subsection (3), line 6, leave out from ("restored") to the second ("the") in line 7, and insert ("to the extent contemplated in").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 27 [Mineral development charge set-off]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 13, after ("apply") insert ("or of land comprising such minerals").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Modification of leases granted before 1st July, 1948]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I think it may be convenient for your Lordships if we take this Amendment and the following Amendment together. I will ask your Lordships to agree to a slight alteration in the wording of the second Amendment as printed. The object of the clause is to enable leases made before the 1947 Act came into force to be modified to take account of the effect of that event, and to make a corresponding transfer to the lessor of some or all of the lessee's payment from the £300,000,000. The object of the Amendment is to enable the Lands Tribunal to take this point into account in modifying a lease. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 4, leave out from ("between") to ("if") in line 5 and insert ("the parties").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR had given notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (2):
"(b) regard shall be had to any liability of the lessee to make payments (other than tonnage royalties) under the lease in excess of the value of the minerals which he could reasonably be expected to work after the said thirtieth day of June, or of any tonnage royalties payable under the lease in respect of such minerals."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the Amendment I desire to move in a slightly amended form, to the extent that I should like to delete from the Amendment as printed all words after "June." I am advised that this change will have no effect on the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 14, at end insert ("(b) regard shall he had to any liability of the lessee to make payments (other than tonnage royalties) under the lease in excess of the value of the minerals which he could reasonably be expected to work after the said thirtieth day of June").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, though I do not say that I am loth

1377
to do it, I confess that we have to take the noble Lord's word for it that the words deleted make no practical difference: we have not had much opportunity to go into the question. However, at first glance, it does look as if the dropped words were not particularly material, and in those circumstances we will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the purpose of subsection (4) of Clause 28 is to enable the scheme for distributing payments from the £300,000,000 to make provision for a transfer of payments between lessee and lessor corresponding to the modifications that nay be made to leases by the Lands Tribunal under subsection (1). This Amendment enables the scheme to prescribe the principles on which the transfer is to be made, and provides for arbitration by the Lands Tribunal in the event of dispute. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 32, leave out from ("may") to end of line 35 and insert ("be prescribed by the scheme:
(b) for the determination by the Lands Tribunal of questions as to the amount of any such payment: to be so transferred").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 46, after the second ("such") insert ("additions and").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenyspor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [[Minerals of National Coal Board]:
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR moved to add to the clause:
"(1) Section twenty-eight of this Act shall not apply in relation to a mining lease granted by the National Coal Board in respect of land to which the provisions of the principal Act relating to operational land of statutory undertakers apply by virtue of regulations made under section ninety of that Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is that the provisions of Clause 28 will not apply to certain land of the National Coal Board—in particular, to coal and minerals worked in association with coal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 16, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGORmoved, after Clause 31 to insert the following new Clause:
Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration
"(1) For the purpose of advising the Minister on questions referred to them under this section, the Minister shall appoint a Committee, to he known as the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration, consisting of such number of members as the Minister may from time to time determine.
(2) The chairman and other members of the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration shall be appointed by the Minister, and shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the instrument by which they are appointed.
(3) The Minister may refer to the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration any question arising in connection with the determination of payments to be made to operators under section eight of this Act, or of the standard rate within the meaning of that section, or any other question connected with functions of the Minister in respect of the restoration of worked ironstone land, whether exercisable under this Act or otherwise.
(4) The Minister may pay to the members of the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration such remuneration or allowances as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine
The noble Lord said: This is an agreed Amendment and an agreed new clause. In so far as we discussed the main principles on Committee stage, I think I need say no more than that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 31 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Regulations]:
LORD REA: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Samuel, I beg to move this Amendment, which I understand is consequential on the earlier new clause after Clause 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 29, after ("one") insert ("section—(Land held on charitable trusts)").—(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD REA: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Samuel, I beg to move this further Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 33, after ("containing") insert ("an order made under section—(Land held on charitable trusts) of this Act, or containing ").—(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Financial Provisions]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the new clause relating to the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 11, after ("committee") insert ("appointed or ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 11, leave out from ("Minister") to ("this") in line 12 and insert ("under").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Interpretation]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, after ("royalty") insert ("(except in the expression 'tonnage royalty')").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, at end insert ("and 'tonnage royalty' means a royalty calculated by reference to the amount of minerals so got from time to time, or of manufactured articles produced from such minerals, or by any similar method;").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Formula for ascertaining contributions by mineral owners]:
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 22, after ("average") insert ("tonnage").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Deductions authorised by s. 6]
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, after the first ("of") insert ("tonnage").—(Lord Macdonald of Givaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, is pleased to give his consent as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may proceed therein as they shall think fit. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  TRENT RIVER BOARD BILL
    WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
6.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the House adjourns there are two Notices that I should like to mention. The first is that there will be a formal meeting of the House to-morrow at four o'clock for the purpose of receiving a Bill, or Bills,
1382
from another place. The other announcement has reference to the Recess. We hope to adjourn on Thursday next, August 2, and to reassemble on October 16.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before seven o'clock.