Lords Sitting of 11 December 1952

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord Vivian—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Banbury of Southam—Took the Oath.

Prayers

  VISIT OF GOVERNOR OF KENYA
  4.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether arrangements will be made to enable members of this House to meet the Governor of Kenya during his visit to this country, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Colonial Secretary to Members of another place.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary will ask the Governor of Kenya, as soon as he arrives in this country to-morrow, whether he will be prepared, as my right honourable friend hopes he will, to meet members of both Houses of Parliament, under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE: CHRISTMAS RECESS
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before we come to the business on the Order Paper, I hope that I may be allowed to intervene to inform your Lordships that it is proposed that Parliament shall go into Recess for Christmas on Friday next, December 19, and reassemble on Tuesday, January 20, next year. We are expecting a Royal Commission here on Tuesday next, the 16th, when the Royal Assent will be given to
  978
  various Bills. There is business on the Paper for Wednesday of next week but at present, at any rate, there is nothing down for Thursday next, so it may be possible for the House to adjourn for Christmas on Wednesday next, the 17th, after the business of that day has been completed.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, before we adjourn, shall we have an announcement from the Government about the proposed Select Committee of this House on delegated legislation?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have had no notice of that question. If the noble Viscount likes to put down a Question, I will see that he is informed.

  GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (SCOTLAND) (WEST FIFE AND KIRKCALDY BURGHS) ORDER, 1952
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (SCOTLAND) (BOTHWELL, NORTH LANARKSHIRE AND MOTHERWELL) ORDER, 1952
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (SCOTLAND) (BOTHWELL, NORTH LANARKSHIRE AND COATBRIDGE AND AIRDRIE) ORDER, 1952
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (SCOTLAND) (CLACKMANNAN AND EAST STIRLINGSHIRE AND STIRLING AND FALKIRK BURGHS) ORDER, 1952
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (SCOTLAND) (WEST RENFREWSHIRE AND GREENOCK) ORDER, 1952
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved. They adjust the Parliamentary boundaries to the municipal boundaries.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we offer no objection to the Motion that has just been moved, but I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. Can he tell me whether, before announcements of this kind are made, or before decisions are reached, it is the custom of the Boundary Commission to meet representatives of the political Parties concerned?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I very much regret that I cannot off-hand inform the noble Lord what the procedure is. I am informed, however, that it is the normal procedure which is taken whenever Parliamentary boundaries have to be adjusted. Is the noble Lord suggesting that some representation has been refused in this matter?
  LORD SHEPHERD: No. May I ask the noble Earl whether he will make inquiries and let me know?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly do so.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  4.10 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.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, on this Motion that the House go into Committee on this Bill, I wish to make a short observation. Your Lordships will perhaps have observed that I, together with my noble friend Lord Temple wood, had down an Amendment to be considered in Committee on this Bill. Our Amendment had reference to an otherwise expiring Act, the title of which is the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939. It had appeared to us, and does appear to us, that the treatment which was suggested for that Act was not altogether appropriate. The full Title of the Act is:
  "An Act to prevent the commission in Great Britain of further acts of violence designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to Irish affairs, and to confer on the Secretary of State extraordinary powers in that behalf."
  In the body of the Act, the first clause provided:
  "With a view to preventing the commission in Great Britain of acts of violence designed
  980
  to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to Irish affairs, the Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by this section."
  The powers conferred by the section were the powers to make an expulsion order or a registration order and, most important, a prohibition order against a person not ordinarily resident in Great Britain who the Secretary of State was reasonably satisfied was attempting, or might attempt, to enter Great Britain
  "with a view to being concerned in the preparation or instigation"
  of these acts of violence with respect to Irish affairs.
  That Act was introduced, and I think very properly introduced, into another place in the summer of 1939, just before the late war broke out. The justification for it, which was complete, was that at that time there were outrages being committed in this country which undoubtedly had their origin in Ireland. The Bill itself was a temporary Bill, and was originally to last for only two years. Lord Templewood, who was then the Home Secretary, was authorised by Parliament to make these orders under the Bill. Lord Templewood is associated with me in what I am doing, and agrees with me.
  I have ascertained that in another place the Home Secretary, in reference to this Bill, gave an assurance that he would not make any further orders under the Act, and explained that the only reason for keeping the Act alive was in order that the prohibition orders already made under it, which are now, I think, about sixty in number, should not lapse with the Act. That was an assurance which he gave. Not only was that so, but his assurance was accepted by Mr. Chuter Ede, the former Home Secretary, as being satisfactory, and it became a Parliamentary pledge. Therefore, when we go into Committee, I do not propose to move these Amendments, for I certainly accept completely the statement of the Home Secretary, and I am confident that it will be observed. But while I shall not move these Amendments in Committee this year, I wish to point out that the method which my noble friend and I have suggested for dealing with the situation is the more appropriate method to be adopted. We feel that the Government should not continue into the year 1953 a merely temporary Act, which was

  981
  passed in 1939 for a situation which has now completely disappeared. Rather should the Government, by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, provide that, while the temporary Act will lapse, the orders already made under it should none the less continue to be of full force and effect. That, I venture to think, is the proper way to do it, and I hope very much that before the Government introduce into Parliament next year an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, they will consider proceeding in that way. If not, I venture to give notice that some of us will ask that it shall be done in this way. In view of the Parliamentary pledge which has been given, I should regard it as quite improper to insist on these Amendments this year, and I therefore venture to take this opportunity of explaining to the House why I do not move them.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the observations of the noble and learned Viscount give point to the necessity for the erection of some machinery to examine what power we have over this type of legislation. It is in nature delegated legislation—at any rate, if it is not delegated it is postponed from time to time, being of a temporary kind. Although, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has just said, it is true that I had not given notice about a question on the appointment of a Committee of this House to consider this subject, I think many people are becoming increasingly concerned at the fact that this House is being excluded entirely from joint inquiries to which we might make a very useful contribution. That is in general. Now as regards this Act. I remember the Act very well, because I opposed it in 1939 when the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, was Home Secretary. I have no doubt (I take it from the noble and learned Viscount) that the Act was necessary—I will not raise that point. But surely it is absolutely wrong, in order that certain people should be under a ban, that we should continue a general power, which in any case the Home Secretary says he does not intend to use. Furthermore, what this Bill is doing is to give this power for another year to the Home Secretary. I should like to ask the Government whether these orders, which are carried on solely by this machinery, expire at the end of the year; or will the effect of our passing this Bill
  982
  without amendment be that we shall be compelled next year again to give the Home Secretary this totally unnecessary power? I should like an answer to that question.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Perhaps the noble Viscount would allow me to explain. I know the situation, I think, accurately. The orders that have been made have no time limit, arid the reason why it was thought necessary to include this Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was that it was desired that the orders made under the Act should continue in operation. The result will be that they will be in operation for another twelve months. But the next time the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill comes before Parliament we shall be able to deal with it, as I should have dealt with it in my Amendments, had it not been that the Home Secretary has given an absolute pledge that he will not further use the Act.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, that is right; the Home Secretary has given a pledge that he will not use the powers for which he is now asking. But my point is: supposing that it is desirable for the public seedily that this ban should be continued over the years, then by passing this Bill, are we not really giving permission for the Government of the clay (whatever it may be in a year's time) again to include this Act for the very same reason—namely, that there is no way of keeping these people under control except by continuing for one year the whole of this unnecessary Act? I think we ought to have some statement from the Government as to what they are going to do in the meantime. I accept entirely, of course, what the noble and learned Viscount says about the pledge in the other place. But can the noble Earl who is speaking for the Government tell us that before he comes to the House again with an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the question of this 1939 Act will have been dealt with finally, since it has no real life and is retained merely for its retrospective value?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I at once thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for what he has said, and assure him that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will appreciate his remarks very much? My right honourable friend has fully in

  983
  mind exactly the point which the noble and learned Viscount has made, and it is specifically for that reason that he has given the precise and personal pledge which he gave in another place. Now, if I may, I will for one moment deal with that point, because I do not think the noble Viscount who has just spoken is quite apprised of what it amounts to. In the first place, this is not delegated legislation at all. In the second place, we are in no way excluded from dealing with this Bill in any way we wish. If I may be allowed to remind your Lordships of the fact, I explained that fully in the course of the discussion on Second Reading last week. What is the position here? The position is this. So far as citizens of the Irish Republic are concerned, they have many of the advantages of not being aliens and not being members of the British Commonwealth; for instance, the Aliens Order does not apply to them at all. They are therefore—and I think the noble Viscount must realise this—in a very specialised position.
  Let me now turn to the 1939 Act. What this Act does is to exclude certain citizens of the Irish Republic from coming here. They have had, on previous occasions, prohibition orders or expulsion orders served against them. Incidentally, the last expulsion order was served in May, 1940. A certain number of those concerned under the Act, or who were intended to be concerned under the Act, had to serve prison sentences on account of extremely violent action for political purposes in this country. They were released from prison after the war at various periods from 1945 to 1948—or something of that sort. When they were released, a prohibition order was served on them saying that they were not to return to this country. It is the view of the Home Secretary that at the present time they should still not return. But, even so, he is prepared to say that although there is reason to believe that some of the more extreme elements of political life in Ireland have not abandoned their willingness to commit acts of violence, he will be prepared to allow all the other powers in the Act to go, but he does not want orders already served to lapse; if he did so he would have no power over those who have shown themselves anxious and willing to come to this country for no reason except
  984
  to commit acts of violence to gain a certain notoriety.
  There is in one part of this Act the power of revocation—and this is a point I should have had to make in speaking on the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment had he moved it. The Secretary of State has said that he will consider very carefully any applications for revocation of orders prohibiting persons coming to this country. That power is included in the Act. The Secretary of State is anxious to retain this power and he will carefully examine any applications made in that sense. The reason which I have mentioned is the one reason why he wishes to retain the Act. I assure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that this Bill will be considered extremely carefully before it is reintroduced in the form in which it will be reintroduced next year. In saying what I have said, I am only repeating the specific undertaking given in that behalf by my right honourable friend in another place.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I believe that I can either ask leave of the House to say a word in reply to the noble Earl or speak again on the Committee stage. The noble and learned Viscount has taken the course of speaking on the Motion for going into Committee, and I think it will probably be for the convenience of your Lordships, if, with permission of the House, I speak now in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. He has delivered, regardless of the criticism that has been made, the speech which he was going to deliver. The criticism is, first of all, as to delegated legislation. We are asked to pass into force for a whole year a whole Act. We do not go through the Act paragraph by paragraph, and to that extent it is delegated legislation. But that is a point of Parliamentary terminology. The Home Secretary seeks to preserve this power for the simple reason that he desires to continue the exclusion of certain individuals. I understand from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that no further orders are to be made. My argument is this. In a year's time, the Home Secretary may come and say, "This man is still dangerous, and this is the only power I have of excluding him. Therefore I ask

  985
  that the whole of this Act shall be retained. I do not propose to use any other part of it except this power, but because of that I want the whole Act continued for another year. "Now that is the sort of thing against which, I suggest, we should protest. The noble Earl has made his speech, and he has given the House an assurance on behalf of his right honourable friend, but I think attention should be drawn to the extension unnecessarily of certain powers of the Executive beyond the times when they may have been necessary and right.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, perhaps I also may he allowed to say another word. I feel that the noble Viscount opposite has become a little unnecessarily concerned. He desires, as I desire, that this Act of 1939 should lapse. It was originally to last for two years, and it has been continued by these annual Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. But we now have an assurance—and I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for what he has said—that our proposal will be most carefully considered. My Amendments would have secured what the noble Viscount opposite is anxious about. They would not have allowed this Act to continue in operation at all, but they would, none the less, have secured that the orders already made continued in full force and effect. That is what my Amendments would have done. In view
  986
  of the fact that the Home Secretary has given this assurance, I think that that is what we should accept for the next year. When this same annual Bill comes before us next year, if this measure is still included the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will find me entirely with him in suggesting that we ought not to continue this legislation. I repeat that I am greatly indebted to the noble Earl for what he has said. I consider that my suggestion is being very fairly treated, and I hope that when next year comes we shall have brought before us an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which does not contain in the Schedule this particular Act.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.

  NEW VALUATION LISTS (POSTPONEMENT) BILL
  4.28 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past four o'clock