Lords Sitting of 17 December 1952

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

Prayers
The Lord Armstrong—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Kinross—Took the Oath.
The Lord Kenlis (M. Headfort)—Took the Oath.
The Earl Fitzwilliam—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Lord Monckton(V Galway)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CIVIL ACTIONS AT ASSIZES
2.40 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given private notice. The Question is as follows: Whether their attention has been drawn to the delays in the hearing of civil actions at Assizes and, if so, whether they have any statement to make.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, the delay in bringing civil actions to trial in London and at some of the large towns on circuit is undoubtedly serious, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for giving me an opportunity of making a full statement on the matter. The reason for the delays is a simple one. It is the serious increase in crime throughout the country, to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has often referred in this House and which is to an ever-increasing extent taking up the time of Her Majesty's judges both in London and at the Assizes. As an example of what is happening, I may tell your Lordships that at the Assizes which are at present being held at Manchester only one of the three Queen's Bench judges has been able to give any time to the trial of civil actions, and he has not been able to do so regularly.
1042
In consequence, it is likely that fewer than 30 civil cases will have been tried by the end of the Assizes, leaving about 520 cases awaiting trial, though this number may be further substantially reduced by cases being settled. Many of these 520 cases—about 40 per cent., in fact—have been set down for a comparatively short time, and no doubt a number of them are not yet really ready for trial. It is still true, however, that many cases have been set down for some months.
So far as the delays on circuit are concerned, the Lord Chief Justice does everything that is possible to deal with this very difficult problem by sending out as many judges as he can spare while giving due regard to the needs of London, so as to ensure that the delays are evenly balanced; and, in fact, the delays at Manchester and Liverpool are very much the same as in London. The difficulty is, perhaps, a rather special one in South Lancashire, owing to the thickly-populated area from which cases come to trial at Liverpool and Manchester. It would ease the position at Assizes if a court were set up in South Lancashire corresponding to the Central Criminal Court in London, to which many of the serious cases which have at present to be tried at Assizes could be sent.
As the Home Secretary has already announced in another place, he and I have appointed a Committee to inquire into this matter, with the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into the need, in order to relieve pressure on Courts of Assize and quarter sessions, for the establishment in South Lancashire of a court on the lines of the Central Criminal Court; and, if the need for such a court is made out, to consider and to report upon its composition, the nature of its jurisdiction, the areas (whether within or outside Lancashire) from which persons might be committed thereto, its place or places of sitting, and how the cost of providing, maintaining and operating the court should be met."
The Committee has been asked to treat the matter as one of urgency and to report at the earliest possible moment.
I have also decided to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of another High Court judge. Provision is already made for this by the High Court and County Court Judges Act, 1950, and no legislation will be necessary. The appointment of one more judge will go some way towards easing the position, and further relief can be and is being given

1043
by the sending of Commissioners of Assize to the places on circuit at which the worst congestion exists. I can assure your Lordships that I am giving, and will continue to give, the closest consideration to this problem, and that everything practicable is being done to cope with it, but it is, I fear, one which is likely to remain in some degree so long as the trial of crime occupies so much of the time of Her Majesty's judges.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that the Lord Chancellor has this matter under his most earnest consideration. Personally, I am very glad that he is exploring the possibility of setting up in Lancashire something analogous to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I am sure he will realise that a policy of balancing delays evenly is very much a second-best policy. The right policy, manifestly, is to see that there are no delays. If he is in any difficulty about the number of judges, I very much hope that the Lord Chancellor will not hesitate to come to Parliament to ask for the necessary powers, because if there are too many judges and on occasion they have to go and play golf, or what you will, that is far better than that lieges should have to suffer the difficulty of delays in the hearing of their cases over long periods of time. The trouble about delays in hearing cases has existed since Shakespeare's time, and it would be a very great attribute of the Lord Chancellor if he could be the first Lord Chancellor finally to end it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for what he has said. Of course I will bear his suggestion in mind.

LONDON TO NEW ZEALAND AIR RACE
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any further statement to make about the participation of the Royal Air Force in the London to Christchurch Air Race which will take place in October, 1953.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, I am glad to have this oppor-
1044
tunity of announcing that the Royal Air Force intends to enter a Valiant bomber and one or more Canberras. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in wishing success to these entries and, if it is not inconsistent to do so, to all other competitors who enter for the race.

COMMONWEALTH AND THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have asked for the views of the Commonwealth Governments concerned on the Tweedsmuir Committee's Report on the Imperial Institute, and, if not, how soon they intend to do so.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, a copy of the Report was communicated before publication to the Commonwealth Governments, who were invited to make any preliminary comments that they might wish. Her Majesty's Government intend that fuller consultation shall take place as soon as it is possible to lay before the Governments concerned their views on the more important recommendations of the Report.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his very satisfactory reply. The only thing I would ask him is whether, since this is an urgent matter, the Government will make up their minds as soon as possible, in order that the further consultations with the other Commonwealth authorities may not be unduly delayed.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can certainly give the noble Earl that assurance.

PRESS FACILITIES AT THE CORONATION
2.46 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that adequate facilities will be made available to the British Press and foreign correspondents at the time of the Coronation.]
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, while my noble friend will be aware that accommodation is limited, and that demands upon it are manifold, he may rest assured that the requirements of Press correspondents, home, overseas and foreign alike, are receiving the fullest consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and every effort will be made to give them reasonable satisfaction, so far as accommodation permits.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: While thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they realise the deep concern felt in Press circles, both here and abroad, about the efficiency of the actual reporting facilities which may be available? Are they considering setting up any sort of Press centre to deal with journalists at the time of the Coronation?
EARL FORTESCUE: Her Majesty's Government are well aware of all that the noble Lord is asking. I am able to announce that the Earl Marshal is setting up an office at 14, Belgrave Square, which, I hope, will give every satisfaction.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I thank the noble Earl for his reply: I am glad that the matter has been raised from an amateur to a professional level. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will also realise that foreign journalists may need interpreters, telephones, typewriters and other facilities.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I emphasise, if a journalist is not treated properly, the tremendous repercussions which that may have in the country from which he comes?
EARL FORTESCUE: I will convey to my noble friend the Lord President of the Council all that the noble Lord has said. I feel sure that facilities will be provided for interpreters, et cetera.
EARL JOWITT: And will Her Majesty's Government see to it that all journalists are treated properly?
EARL FORTESCUE: I will bring that point also to the notice of the Lord President of the Council.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
2.49 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Personal Bills Committee be appointed to which all Petitions for Personal Bills, presented during the present Session, which have been certified as such under the provisions of Standing Order 3 relating to Private Bills, shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

L. Llewellin,

L. Kershaw,

L. Morton of Henryton.

—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLOTHING INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1952
2.50 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in moving the Order which stands in my name, I should like to begin by reminding your Lordships that the Industrial Organisation and Development Act of 1947 authorised the Board of Trade to set up, by order, a development council for any industry, with the object of helping it to increase its efficiency and productivity and to improve the service it renders to the community. Development council orders have been made by the Board of Trade for the cotton, furniture, jewellery and silverware, and clothing industries. The Clothing Industry Development Council Order came into force on January 1, 1950. Under Section 8 of the Act, the Board of Trade are required, within three years of the coming into force of the order, to consult the Council and representative organisations of employers and workers in the industry on the question whether the Council should continue in being. These consultations have now taken place. I am afraid that the result of the consultations was a foregone conclusion. In this particular case, though the experiment has now run for nearly three years, the Council has not been, and has shown no signs of becoming, a central body representative of the industry as a whole and

1047
one enjoying its support and good will. For this reason, such work as it has been able to do (and of course it has been able to achieve some valuable work) has been seriously limited. In those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have reached the conclusion, in the light of consultations with all the interests concerned, that the time has come to bring this experiment to an end, and for the Development Council to give place to a voluntary body which representative bodies of the employers and workers have expressed their willingness to join together in setting up.
The proposed new voluntary body will consist of equal numbers of representatives of both sides of industry, and the arrangements for setting it up are now being worked out by the parties concerned. Its functions will include research into problems affecting production, marketing and distribution, materials, equipment and methods of production, the provision of advice to individual undertakings on methods of increasing efficiency and productivity, the promotion of export trade, the improvement of quality and design, and the training of persons engaged in the industry. As to the arrangements for financing the new body, Her Majesty's Government intend, in accordance with the provisions of the Dissolution Order, to make available funds from the surplus assets of the Development Council, which I understand are expected to be fairly substantial. Further, the Board of Trade are prepared, after the Council has been dissolved, and subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament, to make an order under Section 9 of the Act, if the new joint body so desires it, providing for a levy to be raised from the industry to finance scientific research, the promotion of export trade or the improvement of design.
I want to make this point perfectly clear. The Government's decision to invite Parliament to dissolve the Clothing Industry Development Council does not mean any change in the Government's attitude towards the Act or towards development councils in general. Every case, whether it is a question of the appointment of new councils or of renewing the life of existing ones, must be dealt with on its merits. It is the
1048
Government's view that in many industries valuable work can be done by central, statutory organisations, willingly accepted—and I emphasise that word "willingly"—and performing some or all of the functions listed in the First Schedule to the Act. Experience has shown, however, that this cannot be the case if such organisations are forced on unwilling industries. The purpose of this Order is to end an experiment which, quite frankly, has not succeeded. Its approval will leave the way open to the industry to set up voluntarily a central body of a different and less ambitious kind, but one which will have a far better chance of success, because it will start with the co-operation of both sides of the industry. The Government are confident, from the assurance that they have received, that both sides are anxious to pass the sponge over the asperities and misunderstandings of the past and to get together in a practical way to tackle the problem of a great but extremely complex industry in a way that will benefit not only those who gain their livelihood in it but the much wider circle of those who handle and consume its products, both here and in our vital export markets overseas.
The purpose of this draft Order is, therefore, to dissolve the Clothing Industry Development Council. It will be the first Order of its kind to be made under the Act, and it is for that reason that I have trespassed unduly upon your Lordships' time. Such Orders must be laid in draft before Parliament and be approved by Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament before they can be made. In accordance with Section 8 (4) of the Act, the draft Order provides for the winding-up and dissolution of the Council, for the revocation of the Clothing Industry Development Council Order, 1949, and for the application of surplus moneys of the Council for certain specified purposes connected with the industry, which are set out in the Schedule to the Order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Clothing Industry Development Council (Dissolution) Order, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I first of all offer to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, the congratulations of noble Lords on this side of the House upon his elevation to the Front Bench. Our best wishes go out to him. He will not find it such a comfortable seat as that which he has enjoyed on the Back Bench, but I hope that we shall not lose the humour which he has practised on various platforms at different times. May I also offer him our commiseration upon his impending disability, and wish him a speedy recovery and a happy return to your Lordships' House?
My Lords, it is unfortunate that upon the occasion of his first speech from the Front Bench the noble Lord has had to uncover this rather discreditable episode in the history of the clothing industry. Perhaps I may be allowed to refresh your Lordships' memories with some of the details. This was the only Development Council which was set up where the late Government could not claim that a majority of employers and employees were in favour, although when I had the task of securing an agreement in your Lordships' house to this Order I was successful in persuading your Lordships that a substantial number were in favour, which was what the Act called for. The reason why a majority could not be claimed was because of the terrible state of the industrial organisation of this industry. It is an industry having in the region of 460,000 workers and about 30,000 or more employers. Seventy-five per cent. of the employers were not even organised in any trade association—and trade associations abound in this industry in Yorkshire. I believe that there are twenty-five different organisations who claim to represent some section of the clothing industry, yet 75 per cent. of the employers are still outside any organisation. I believe, also, that there are only about 5,000 firms employing over 100 people, while 20,000 firms employ fewer than ten. If ever there was in this country an industry which required industrial organisation and education in productivity, at a time like the present, when our great need is to increase our technical efficiency and the productivity of all our industries, to bring down the costs and prices of those industries, surely, without
1050
any argument whatsoever, this is such an industry.
What has happened? When my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in the last Government put this Order into force, sixteen to eighteen of these employers' organisations banded themselves into what I might almost call a strike committee, and went on strike. They withheld their support, apart from doing the only thing which they could be forced to do by law—and that was to contribute to the levy. In point of fact, they carried that strike action so far that they took my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to the courts of this country to restrain him from setting up the Council at all. And it is to the credit of two or three of the employers' organisations and the trade unions that they carried on this Development Council for three years, and did excellent work, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been fair enough to admit. I do not call that a very creditable performance, and I am surprised that Her Majesty's Government have not had sufficient courage to attempt at least to persuade the clothing industry to carry on with this Council.
It appears to me that at the first available moment, when the three years' probationary period is up, at the pressure of these recalcitrant employers the Government say: "We will now disband this Development Council." If any noble Lord wishes to go right back into the history of this matter, to 1943, when the first grand council of the clothing industry was formed under the chairmanship of the gentleman who is now Sir Russell Vick, Q.C., every member always maintained that there is in this industry a need for a central body to try to co-ordinate all this multiplicity of trade associations. When the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says that both sides of the industry will co-operate in trying a voluntary scheme, he is, of course, technically correct. But I think your Lordships should know that the unions representing the organised employees in this industry protested vigorously against the disbanding of this Development Council, and carried their protest to the noble Lord's right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. And I think that, in fairness, I could say this. The President of the

1051
Board of Trade was quite convinced that it is necessary in this industry to have some central authority to do the work which this Development Council set out to do.
Again, I think it is to the credit of the unions, when they could see that the President of the Board of Trade was going to succumb to the pressure—and "pressure" is the most polite word I can use in this connection—of these sixteen or eighteen associations, when they could see that he was going to give way, they said: "Well, if that is so, we will do our best to co-operate and make a voluntary organisation work." But what was the first proposal of the employers on this voluntary organisation? It was that they should have a two-to-one representation. That showed a wonderful spirit of co-operation! They sought to have a grip of this. What for? I think we should be very foolish if we entertained any great hopes that those who went to the length of destroying this statutory organisation are going to put forth any great effort to make a voluntary organisation work. I understand (if I am wrong in this I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will correct me) that the two employers' organisations who supported the Development Council, set up under the Act, have been boycotted, and have not even been invited to become members of the new body. The noble Lord did not say this, but understand (again I say that I understand this: I have no official information) that in order to make room for all this multiplicity of trade associations, large and small, they are to have twenty a side, and the whole voluntary Council is now going to number about forty—a very convenient working number to get anything progressive done!
Now I should like to ask the noble Lord just one or two questions. He has said that there are ample funds. I believe there are. They will be placed in the hands of a liquidator, whose powers are set out quite clearly in the Order. The manner in which the fund can be disbursed is also set out in the Schedule, and corresponds very roughly to the objects of the original Order. The noble Lord has said that when these funds run out—and I can imagine that the life of the voluntary body will he measured by that time—the President of the Board of Trade can, by order, reinstitute the levy if
1052
it is desired by the Development Council so to do. As to what chance there is of getting this organisation to work past the date when it runs out of the funds which it has in the bank, my speculation is about as good as that of anyone else. If the noble Lord tells your Lordships that he has any optimistic feeling about the position at this time, and for the next four or five years, when the need will be more than ever vital, and when a great industry like this, employing 450,000 or 460,000 workers, is going to be devoid of any progressive organisation to do what has been proved to be advantageous to the rest of British industry, all I can say is that I am afraid I think differently.
This Development Council had one great achievement to its credit. In my view it did valuable work in educating the smaller firms in the clothing industry—and, as I have proved to your Lordships by figures, they are legion. The larger firms, who employ thousands of workers, are efficient. The most efficient firms in the clothing industry are amongst the most efficient in any industry in this country; but, as with every other industry, the gap between the most efficient and the least efficient is far too wide for the progress of British industry as a whole, and it was here that this organisation proved so useful. What assurance can the noble Lord give us that this productivity plan, which has worked so well, will go on? It has worked so well precisely because of the excellent permanent staff employed by the Council. What assurance can the noble Lord give that the same permanent personnel (I believe I am right in saying that there were about thirty expert technicians employed by this Council) are going to stay? Are they to be dismissed to cut down expenses? If so, will they be paid any compensation?
I am not going to oppose this Order. I hope that this voluntary body will be successful. But if it is, it will be one of the few that are. In my experience, organisations of this type fail through one fundamental weakness. They rest on the efforts of a few, which benefit the many; and this state of affairs goes on until the few get so tired of carrying the whole weight that they have to give up, either through exhaustion of their patience or through exhaustion of their funds. The next time the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has something to put before your Lordships

1053
I hope that it will be a little more pleasant than this. I wish this Council the best of good fortune and, for what it is worth, may I assure the noble Lord that organised labour in the clothing industry will do their best and spare no effort to make it a success. I can only hope that the employers' side of this industry will show a far better spirit than they have shown in the past, a spirit that will match the enthusiasm and helpfulness of the trade unions.
3.13 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord who has just sat down. He says that the clothing industry, in its larger units, is one of the most progressive and efficient in this country. I think that is true. A study of the Army and Navy Stores catalogue of 1890, as compared with that of 1939, will show that in the course of these fifty years the clothing industry has made the most amazing progress towards bringing cheap clothing to the people of this country. That is visible in their dress as we see it in the streets. If the efficiency of the larger units in an industry in which there is the most intense competition is so good, how is it that the others run a business at all? I believe that the noble Lord is raising a complete myth when he suggests that other firms are inefficient. The fact is that they have to be in the van of progress in their methods in order to keep in business at all. They are clearly doing that. How Her Majesty's Government could support the existence of a Council which was imposed upon an unwilling industry I do not know, because the whole essence of a Council of this sort is that it must be worked with the good will and the co-operation of everybody in the industry. It is always a fruitless task to bring horses to the water when they do not want to drink. The only thing I can hope is that, now that the scheme is on a voluntary basis, the employers will gradually see that there may be some good to be got out of it, and that those, at present, unwilling spirits may gradually come in, because that is the only way by which ultimately a development council can be of the slightest use to an accept one.
3.15 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for the personal remarks he made about myself? They are greatly appreciated. I am sorry he takes such a pessimistic and gloomy view of the prospects of this Council. He dwelt at some length on the failure in the past. I think I admitted freely that there had been almost a complete failure. But it seems more profitable, on the whole, if we can forget the failure of the past and try to profit by such mistakes as have been made to make certain that this voluntary Council does not make the same mistakes as were made by the old compulsory Council. I could not help being interested in the remarks of the noble Lord concerning the work of voluntary councils, because, as he may know, I have been for four years chairman of one of these voluntary councils. While obviously it would be improper for me to make any remarks about that, I can say that I have a great deal more optimism than he has about the chances of this Council working. Perhaps, in a year's time we shall be able to give him more accurate answers to the questions he asked to-day. As to the boycott, I know nothing of that. I assure the noble Lord that the composition of the Council is not yet final, and I am certain that the best possible team will be selected.
The noble Lord asked whether we should derive profit from the undoubted good work that has already been done by the Development Council. The answer to that is, Yes. Everything useful that has been done—for instance there comes to my mind at once the investigation into the problem of sizing—will be taken over. All the good experience that has been learned will be incorporated, so far as possible, in the new voluntary body. The noble Lord also asked me what would happen to the staff of the present Council. The powers of the liquidator, as your lordships can see from the draft Order, are very wide, and I can assure the noble Lord that in this respect, as in all others, the liquidator will adopt the attitude of the reasonable employer. More cannot be said than that. I welcome the assurance given by the noble Lord that organised labour will do their best to make this new body a success. I am sure the employers will also do the same. I endorse the noble Lord's

1055
remarks about the need for some central body, particularly in such a highly complex industry as this, which the noble Lord described to your Lordships in some detail. I think it is preferable that such a body should be launched into the clothing world with the optimistic hope that it will succeed rather than with the pessimistic fear that previous mistakes will be repeated. I am certain that they will not be.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1952
3.20 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Order amends the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1952, which imposes levies on the lace industry to provide moneys for scientific research. It is an agreed Order. I understand that it is quite acceptable to all sides of the industry, and I can confidently recommend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain that this Order really only alters the incidence of the collection of the levy, and does not increase the amount? On his giving that assurance, we shall be quite willing to allow it to go through.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I was going to explain that on the next Order. The two Orders are linked and are consequential. What the noble Lord says is perfectly true.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE FURNISHINGS INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1952
3.21 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this also is an agreed Order and, as I have just informed your Lordships, it really marches with the previous one. It is the result of an undertaking given to the industry, and I can likewise confidently recommend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
3.22 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I beg to move this Order. This is one of many similar Orders that have been moved in your Lordships' House. The procedure under the Schedule to the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, has been complied with, and I do not think I need say anything particular about this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Southwell, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS DRAFTING AND PROCEDURE
3.23 p.m.
LORD SILKEN LORD SILKEN rose to call attention to the Report from the Special Orders Committee, dated the 3rd December, 1952; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order paper. For some months now this House has been engaged in the consideration of matters of high national and international importance and it is perhaps appropriate that immediately before we rise for the Christmas Recess we should direct our attention to a domestic affair with a view to satisfying ourselves that we are running our own business as efficiently as we can. Your Lordships will remember that last Tuesday week we discussed the Police Pensions Regulations in connection with which there was a Report from the Special Orders Committee. Your Lordships will recollect that the regulations were admittedly unsatisfactory in the way in which they were presented: they purported to amend non-existent regulations, and they were the subject of somewhat caustic observations from the Special Orders Committee. With considerable reluctance this House agreed to those regulations, on the assurance, which I do not for a moment dispute, that if they were not passed the police would suffer in consequence by not being able to get their benefits by Christmas. That was putting the House in a very invidious position. On the one hand, we had these really unsatisfactory regulations which, if the House had had a free hand, I am convinced it would not have passed. On the other hand, we were being told that unless we did pass them a very worthy body of men and women would suffer. Naturally, we accepted the lesser of the two evils and we approved the regulations. I do not want to dwell on that incident further. I hope that the Home Office will never again produce regulations of that kind in this House, and I believe they have learned their lesson.
The discussion that we had on that occasion opened the question of the work of the Special Orders Committee, and it is with a view to giving the House an opportunity of considering the work of that Committee in relation to statutory instruments that I have put this Motion down. The Special Orders Committee, like many
1058
other Committees, are unobtrusive and do their work very quietly; very little is seen or heard of them so long as things go smoothly and well. There is no doubt that they have rendered a great service to this House in producing their Report of December 3 last. In consequence of that, I thought it right to examine how this Committee were set up, and what work they do. I find that the Committee are constituted under Rule 214 of the Standing Orders Relative to Private Bills. The first thing that strikes one on reading that Rule is that, contrary to what one would believe—certainly contrary to what I believed, namely, that the Special Orders Committee examined all statutory instruments that came before the House and expressed a view on them all—all they examine are those instruments which require an Affirmative Resolution of the House. Those number, possibly, 10 to 15 per cent. of the total. Therefore, so far as 80 to 85 per cent. of the statutory instruments which are presented are concerned, there is no examination by any committee at all. That is a most significant fact relative to the question of Parliamentary control. It is true that, as regards the others, the 80 to 85 per cent., it is open to any noble Lord to put down a Prayer with a view to negativing the statutory instrument. But, seeing that we get, as I have said before, some 2,000 a year of those, it is a rather tall order, and it is not really physically possible for any noble Lord to devote himself to the task of examining every one of those regulations. That is the first point that strikes one.
The second is that the powers of the Special Orders Committee are extremely limited. What are they asked to do? They are asked to examine orders which require an Affirmative Resolution from three points of view:
"Whether the provisions raise important questions of policy or principle; how far the order is founded on precedent; whether having regard to the answers to the two preceding questions and to any other relevant circumstances, the order can he passed by the House without special attention …"
That is a useful power which enables the Committee to draw the attention of the House to orders requiring Affirmative Resolutions which need the consideration of the House. But it does not go very far. It does not give the House any guidance. I should like to strengthen the powers of this Committee. I know that

1059
the Chairman is not particularly anxious to have these powers extended, but I feel that if the Special Orders Committee are really to be of service to this House, their powers ought to be extended so that they can give further guidance, and, if necessary, in the case of an instrument coming before them such as the one which related to police, even send it back to the Department and call for something which is more intelligible. Now they have no power to do that. All they can do is to direct the attention of the House to these three points that I have mentioned.
There is another factor in the matter, and that is the time factor to which I have referred indirectly. We were placed in a very great dilemma on the occasion of the Police Regulations, but I understand that it is the practice of many Departments to present their instruments in such a way that an inadequate amount of time is given, either to the Special Orders Committee or to this House itself. I refer to the Police Regulations because the matter arises as the result of what happened. But in that case I, as, I hope, a fairly normal and diligent member of this House, had my attention drawn to these regulations only on the morning of the day on which they came before the House. It may be that with a good deal of research one might conceivably have discovered them a day or so earlier. But this House is not given much time in these matters, and frequently the Special Orders Committee are not given sufficient time properly to examine these instruments and to give them the consideration which they ought to receive. I suggest that some timetable might be laid down in the Rules which would require a Department to deposit with the Special Orders Committee any instrument for which they required approval, sufficiently early to provide a certain amount of time for consideration both in the Committee and in the House. This is, of course, only part of a much bigger question, and that is the whole question of effective Parliamentary control over statutory instruments, but it is a very important part of it. Even this 10 to 15 per cent. of the statutory instruments is a substantial part, and I
1060
imagine that, by and large, it does constitute the more important of the instruments that are made by the various Departments.
There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer in connection with these Rules and that is, as I have said, that they were made about twenty years ago. If the noble Viscount who is to reply reads them, he will find that they are somewhat out of date. They relate to matters which no longer obtain to-day, and on reading these Rules it is a little difficult to find which are applicable at the present time and which are not. Here again, as in the case of the regulations of which we disposed yesterday, I would suggest that the time may well have come for a new edition of these Standing Orders, cutting out those parts that have become archaic and bringing the whole thing up to date. My intention in putting this Motion down was simply to initiate a discussion. I do not propose to press Her Majesty's Government for Papers. Indeed, I do not know what Papers I really want.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): Nor do we.
LORD SILKIN: But I did think it was a suitable subject for discussion as the last business before the Christmas Recess. I beg to move for Papers.

CORONATION MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps the House will permit me to intervene for a moment to make a similar statement to one which is now being made in another place. I am glad to be able to inform the House that, after consultation between the Prime Ministers of members of the Commonwealth, and in accordance with precedent, it has been agreed that a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers should be held in London immediately after the Coronation next year.

SPECIAL ORDERS DRAFTING AND PROCEDURE
Debate resumed.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will forgive me if I do not follow very closely the observations which he has made to the House. When I saw his Motion on the Order Paper, I had not realised that he was intending to talk, as he has talked, about the powers of the Special Orders Committee, although it is very desirable and right that they should be both talked about, discussed and disposed of in some way or another. On the other hand, I do not wish particularly, as your Lordships may suppose, to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by anything that I am going to say. What I am about to say will, I hope, embarrass all Governments, and induce them to change their heart and their manner of proceeding.
I take as my text the order to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has drawn attention, and two orders relating to designs, trade marks and patents which were discussed the other day. When we drew the Lord Chancellor's attention to that latter order he at once recognised the justice of our complaints and generously gave us as full a promise as we could have expected that the matter would be remedied in the future. The order about police pensions, however, is not capable of being disposed of in that way. I wish to call your Lordships' attention very closely to the circumstances in which it was presented and to its content. It was presented in such a way that nobody could possibly make out what it meant. The noble Earl the Chairman of the Committee, with great labour and with the skilled assistance at his command, succeeded in explaining to the Special Orders Committee more or less what its general purport was. But no living being without professional assistance, and very few living beings with professional assistance, could possibly determine what the order is all about, and certainly not what it effects. It was presented to us with a statement that, whether we understood it or not—and we, poor fish! could not possibly be expected to understand it anyhow—unless we gave it our assent before Christmas, some third party would suffer. I wish to use strong language, and I regard that as legislative blackmail, and the worst
1062
form of blackmail. It means that extortion is used upon one person, and that unless he yields the punishment falls upon a perfectly innocent third party. I cannot understand any reason whatever for attempting to justify such a Parliamentary method. It is a very unfortunate thing.
Secondly, as to the form of the document, the order itself, many defences are put forward in its support. First, it is said that documents of this sort have to be in legal language. That is a doctrine which I wish to repudiate with all the force at my command. Legal language is that language which expresses most concisely, most clearly and unambiguously the design which the draftsman has in mind, according to the instructions which he has received. There is not the least reason why the creation of obscurity should be excused by saying that there is some legal reason for it. It is perfectly true that there are certain legal instruments which—having their origin, for the most part, in times when the languages used were Norman French or Latin—can be expressed only in some kind of legal jargon. That is equally true of certain kinds of scientific matters. I know that I could never understand them, and I shall never understand the terms in which they are put. But on the question of whether certain sums of money should be paid to the widows of policemen, at certain times of the year, on the fulfilment of certain requirements, there is not the slightest reason for the use of anything but plain language, arranged in a plain way, so as to convey to the mind of the reader exactly what is intended. Then, it is said that regulations about pensions and allowances are very difficult to express. That reason is given to me by people of great experience—people whose opinion I deeply respect. I am sorry, therefore, to have to say that I cannot accept it. One must not allow oneself to be bemused by statements that matters of this kind cannot be expressed in English. If one does so, one is led to the conclusion that the person who is trying to express them really does not know what he is trying to express. Those two reasons, I know, are given in all good faith as applicable to badly drafted regulations.
Other reasons, however, are given, and were given before the Special Orders Committee, which appear to me to be of a

1063
more sinister kind. I have here an extract from the Minutes of Proceedings before the Special Orders Committee. I should like to read it, but before doing so I desire to make an apology to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I had supposed that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would reply to this debate, and I had sent him a copy of what I was going to read—though, I am sorry to say, apparently it never reached him. I have not had an opportunity of sending a copy of the document to the Lord Chancellor, and I hope he will pardon me—I will hand it to him afterwards. This document mentions a gentleman whose name I will not repeat, because I should appear to be holding him up particularly to blame, which I am not doing. I have known him and worked with him for many years, and I know him to be a most efficient and well-thought-of servant in his Department. What he said was this:
"Perhaps I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that these are very much what one might call expert administrators' regulations. They are not the type of thing supplied to every single citizen throughout the land, they are Regulations which are administered by police authorities who will keep up-to-date copies, presumably, posted up; that is on the administrative side, and on the policeman's side the policeman is represented by what one might call his trade union, who have, equally, a number of people who are very well able to trace these Regulations so that, perhaps I would suggest to your Lordships that it is rather less serious that they should be difficult to follow than it would be if the Regulations were of universal application."
The Chairman said:
"You see, we have to follow them in Parliament, too, as far as we can, which makes it very difficult."
I said:
"They have got to be interpreted not only by the authorities but also by the people who receive the pensions. How are they going to find out without wading through volume after volume and spending a great deal of money and a great deal of time? I think the worst answer that can be given on a regulation is to say that a Department understands all about it and it does not matter about everybody else."
Then this gentleman to whom I have referred added:
"I attempted to cover that by saying that at the receiving end as well, the policeman's trade union looks after the pensioner as opposed to the local authority, which is the party paying."
Incidentally, the police have no trade union. In the second place, the ordinary
1064
citizen, and perhaps the paying authority, is being told in effect "Just accept what you are told and keep your mouth shut." How is he to know whether that is right or not?
This gentleman of whom I am speaking went on:
"I am offering that as an excuse. These are complicated Regulations, anyhow, and the people who generally use them, I hope, are people who would understand them. I did not suggest that they ought to be obscure."
I said:
"Obscurity is an end in itself, apparently."
He replied:
"… I said 'I hope.' I did not intend to suggest that they were intended to be obscure or properly obscure."
I said:
"You surely agree this is obscure, do not you?"
He replied:
"Yes, I think it is very difficult not to be obscure in Pensions Regulations, anyhow."
Now, my Lords, if we are going to have regulations put before us, as in the present case, which cannot be understood by Parliament or by the Special Orders Committee (who have special help from the Chairman and from his advisers), and which cannot be understood by the people principally affected, that is to say by those who are to be the recipients of the pensions, then the whole regulations power will fall into complete disrepute. It is a very popular piece of machinery, this power of regulation. I have always regarded it as a very valuable cog in the machinery of Government. Indeed, in these complicated days I do not think we could get on without this piece of machinery; I do not think that Parliament could possibly deal with all the details of so many legislative enactments. But if that power is to continue to be entrusted to the various Government Departments it must be exercised by them in good faith—and I suggest that these regulations are not made in good faith. In the the first place, they are thrown before us in such a form that we do not understand them, and in such a form that the recipient cannot understand them; and that puts this piece of very valuable machinery almost in such a condition that it will not be possible for it to be used in the future.
Noble Lords may say, "Now that you have fired off this diatribe on this procedure, what have you to suggest in its

1065
place?" I say frankly, my Lords, that I have nothing to suggest. We have thought about this matter. If I may introduce a personal note, I myself thought about it deeply for a great many years before the Donoughmore Committee was set up. We discussed it on that Committee and it has been discussed ever since; and the answer is that there is no cure except a deliberate intention on the part of those to whom this power is entrusted, within their limits, to ensure that everyone shall understand what is said so that there shall be no further encroachment on our present liberties and no more petty tyrannies added to those under which we are living at present. On the other hand, this House and the other place, and the Special Orders Committee, should be eternally vigilant. All that the Special Orders Committee could do in the two particular cases I have mentioned was to call the attention of Parliament to the wording of these regulations. This House, on both occasions, was almost forced to disregard the form and nature of the regulations and to pass them because paramount considerations intervened. But this sort of thing cannot happen in the case of future Reports from the Special Orders Committee. This was a very moderate Report. I fear that if I had had the drafting of it it would have been far more violent and bitter in character. This is a matter of very great constitutional importance, and I am sorry that it should be discussed in the last two or three days before Christmas, and in a small House. I am sorry too, that my voice should be the only one raised after that of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to ask your Lordships to consider the matter. I entreat your Lordships to remember how important this matter is, and how necessary it is that we should be vigilant.
3.50 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it is seldom that I find myself in the happy position of agreeing with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, says; but I do so to-day, and I feel great confidence in the fact that we do agree. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said in his most interesting contribution. I do not think I am speaking now from the point of view of one side of the House particularly. Your Lordships may say, having regard to my past record for the last six or seven years, that this is a
1066
case of Satan rebuking sin. It may be, on the other hand, merely a case of (as an illustration) a poacher turning gamekeeper, and being very often a very good gamekeeper. I think we should see that this sort of thing does not happen again. I suggest that the only way we can make sure that it does not happen again is by declining, at whatever cost, to pass the offending regulation. As the noble Lord has just said, it is not a matter of the substance of the regulations; it is a matter of the form. The principle at issue, as noble Lords on all sides of the House maintain, is that when this House is asked to pass a regulation, an ordinary intelligent reader, on reading the regulation, ought to be able to know what it is about. I hope that in future, if an ordinary intelligent reader cannot make out what it is about, then, at whatever cost, the House will say definitely, "We will not pass this regulation." I will warrant that, if we accept that principle, your Lordships will find that the drafting of these regulations will improve beyond all recognition.
I am not making the smallest attack upon the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. He had to give us the advice which he had received, and he gave us the advice which he had received. I refer to this passage at Column 824 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of December 9 last. This is what the noble Lord said, summing up the advice he had received—I am reading from nine lines down the page:
"My advice is, therefore, that we have no vires to effect a consolidation of this kind. It would not be possible to consolidate the regulations in so far as they apply to existing pensions."
With regard to that first statement,
"we have no vires to effect a consolidation of this kind."
I desire to say as emphatically as I can that I believe that to be absolute non-sense. I suggest that that advice ought never to have been given to the noble Lord. If you have a power to write in "January" for "October" in this sort of way, you most certainly have power to set out the regulation with "January" instead of "October" so that people can understand it. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord—I am not blaming him—there is absolutely no question at

1067
all of vires about this. You are not seeking to do anything different in the two cases. All we are asking is that it should be done clearly and intelligibly.
3.54 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords I do not want to shelter behind the advice that I was given: I may have misinterpreted it. But that was how I understood it. It is a very complicated matter, and I think that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will explain to the House the difficulties (for there are difficulties still) about this question of the Pensions Regulations. In that passage, I may legally have expressed myself incorrectly. If I did, I apologise to the House; but, in certain respects, there is no power to destroy or tear up existing regulations. My noble and learned friend will, I think, explain that later on. I do not want those who advised me to appear to he wrong about this, because it was a complicated legal matter and I may not have expressed myself clearly and correctly in that passage.
EARL JOWITT: I certainly do not hold the noble Lord in the least to blame, but anybody who told the noble Lord to get up and say that consolidation was impossible, simply like that, was, to my mind, making a really misleading statement, because it is so absolutely incomplete.
If I may give the simplest illustration possible, take the law dealing with the roads of this country—we had a case of this kind recently. In that law you will have to deal, in one category, with the trunk roads; in another category with the county council roads; in another category with the unclassified roads; in another category with another sort of road, and so on. You will find that each has its own particular section. I am not suggesting for a moment that in this particular regulation, which deals with certain classes of pensions, you can deal with all other classes of pensions; but there is nothing whatever—I assert positively, in my view, at any rate—to prevent a consolidated regulation dealing with each sort of pension in its own class. There is nothing whatever with regard to these regulations—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is the noble and learned Earl referring to
1068
pensions which have accrued or to pensions which have not accrued?
EARL JOWITT: To either. If consolidation is necessary, you can deal with it. With regard to these pensions, no consolidation is necessary at all. You obviously cannot interfere at all with pensions which are now accruing, but you can set out your law plainly and succinctly, dealing in one chapter with pensions that have accrued and in the next chapter with pensions about to accrue.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl is dealing not with the consolidating of Acts but with the consolidating of regulations. I think that in what he has been saying to the House he has ignored that distinction.
EARL JOWITT: I do not admit that any such distinction exists. If you can consolidate Acts, so you can consolidate regulations, if they call for consolidation. I do not say that the regulations about existing pensions need to be consolidated. I do not know—I have not studied them. If they are to be found on various scraps of paper spread through the books—perhaps I may ask a rhetorical question of the Lord Chancellor—why cannot you consolidate those regulations, if they need it? I do not say they do, but I think it is plain that you can if you want to, or if there is need for it. I say that the bald, general statement which we were given by the noble Lord, on instructions and advice given to him, that no consolidation of these particular regulations, or of regulations generally, was possible, was entirely misleading. It would have been easy—at least an expert draftsman could have done it—to say, "In place of regulation so-and-so" (that is, a regulation of 1949, amended in 1951) "the following regulation shall have effect"; and there set out, as we have done in some of our recent Acts, something which "he who runs may read" and understand. That was not done in this case. I am not concerned to make a great "song and dance" about it, save to say that I hope that the whole House will support me, if ever regulations appear again in this irregular form, in demanding that the House shall just decline to pass them, and leave it at that.
Having had a very long experience of this matter, both in this House and in

1069
another place, may I say this to your Lordships? It is not infrequently said —I am afraid with some truth—that if you want to get this sort of thing through the House, you can sometimes get it through in this form just because people do not fully understand what you are doing, whereas you would have much more difficulty in getting it through if you set it all out at length. There may be some truth in that—I do not know—so far as another place is concerned; but let it at least be plain in the future that there is no truth in that so far as your Lordships' House is concerned. If you cannot get a thing through when it is set out plainly so that anybody can understand it, you should not be able to get it through at all. I quite realise the many difficulties that there may be. I quite realise, of course, that if you set out the whole thing in another place, you may enlarge the scope and ambit for question, and the scope of the debate will be enlarged. I realise that; but, so far as we are concerned, we have no trouble comparable with the trouble that I sometimes think they have in another place—though it is not for me to suggest that they have it. Here, however, we can afford to set the thing out quite plainly, and there is no reason why consolidation of this particular type of regulation—that is, the new pensions regulations should not be carried out.
I think we can all learn from our experience of this matter, and we shall learn usefully from the mistake which I venture to think was made in this case. It is by no means a unique matter. I have no doubt that in my time of office the same thing was done on many occasions. I am not blaming the Lord Chancellor any more than I am blaming myself. I am suggesting, just as I have indicated to your Lordships on the question of reform, that the whole House should reform in this matter, and that we should ask for a higher standard in the future than we have exacted in the past.
4.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure we are all at one in agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said at the opening of his observations—namely, that we owe a great debt to the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, and his colleagues, the members of the Special Orders Committee. With the rest of
1070
what the noble Lord said (I hope he will acquit me of any discourtesy) I must deal very briefly, for, indeed, I had not appreciated when I read the terms of his Motion that he proposed to raise any general question upon the powers of the Special Orders Committee. The same remark applies to certain observations of the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. That is a matter which, as your Lordships are well aware, we hope to investigate by a Select Committee of this House. The noble Marquess who leads the House sent me a message to-day, inviting me to say that he and I were in discussion about this matter and hope to approach your Lordships early in the New Year. Your Lordships know how many are his preoccupations at the moment. So, while I sympathise with a great deal that the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Schuster, have said, that is a matter which must be investigated by a Select Committee of the House, and I venture to hope that Lord Schuster will by then be in a more optimistic frame of mind. He said, I think, that there was nothing to suggest and nothing to be done. Let us hope that the joint efforts of the Select Committee may result in some better safeguard of our liberties. But I do not know whether I heard the noble Lord clearly. It was my fault; I had difficulty in hearing what he said.
As to the form of the regulation which gave rise to this discussion, may I say that I quite agree with some of the criticisms that have been made? The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said, quite rightly, that the Special Orders Committee works for the benefit of the House as a whole, and we on all sides are indebted when our attention is called to a regulation which falls in any way short of the standard which we have been accustomed to demand. Perhaps one may say, not by way of justification or excuse, that the result of thirty years' experience of these statutory instruments leads one to expect a rather low level of intelligibility. By that, I mean a low level of intelligibility for the person who is not directly concerned with the regulation itself. I interpose that qualification because you cannot expect somebody wholly inexpert in a particular subject matter to take up a regulation and understand it. But I agree that those who are interested in the subject matter should be able to read and understand.

1071
I am authorised by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, to say that they have given earnest consideration to the Report of the Special Orders Committee of our House; and I think your Lordships will appreciate that when I tell you that in an order called the Firemen's Pension Scheme (No. 3) Order of 1952 which has recently been laid before the House, they immediately took to heart the observations of the Special Orders Committee, and altered the draft so that in fact it conforms with the wishes of the Committee. I commend to your Lordships reading, for your Christmas Holidays, the Firemen's Pension Scheme (No. 3) Order of 1952.
Now so far as concerns another point to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, particularly referred—namely, the possibility of consolidation—I imagine that one thing that your Lordships least wish to hear in this House is a discussion upon an intricate legal problem between the noble and learned Earl and myself; but I do venture to say that he is, if not wholly wrong, at least not wholly right—and for this reason: that there is a substantial distinction between the consolidation of orders and the consolidation of Acts of Parliament. If a person (I will take as an example a police officer) has a right under a particular regulation, and under that regulation has a pension, so far as he is concerned the regulation under which he has that pension cannot be consolidated. For, of course, although we call it a consolidated regulation, it is a regulation made under the Statute which concerns him—at least, it purports to concern him. But already his rights are determined by the preceding regulation. Therefore it is quite right to say that, so far as concerns vires (that is the word the noble and learned Earl used), there is no vires to make a regulation concerning him by way of a consolidated regulation if his rights are already established under a preceding regulation.
EARL JOWITT: May I just intervene? I am said to be wrong and I think the House would like to know why I am wrong. I agree that you cannot alter the thing; but may I point out to the Lord Chancellor that the whole point of consolidation is that by consolidation you
1072
are not altering; you are merely putting into more convenient language the existing rights. I entirely agree with him in that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps after all the House may enjoy a discussion on this matter. The noble and learned Earl says, "to put into more convenient language the existing rights." Well, who knows whether the art of the draftsman is such that a person's rights are the same under the consolidated regulation as they were under the original regulation? The difficulty of consolidation is the fact that you cannot reproduce with exactitude and certainty the rights which are established under the preceding regulation; and so I say (the noble and learned Earl may challenge it if he thinks fit) that, so far as vested rights are concerned, you cannot usefully consolidate regulations in the same way that you can consolidate Acts of Parliament. So far is that so, that if the noble and learned Earl will invite the co-operation of the Parliamentary draftsmen in this matter he will be told that they have not yet been able to consolidate the existing Acts dealing with Civil Service superannuation, simply because of the extreme difficulty of doing so.
I do not want to keep up this question of the possibility of consolidation, but it is a fact that you cannot consolidate regulations in the way that the noble and learned Earl suggests—by a stroke of the pen. So far from it being absolute non-sense (to use the words of the noble and learned Earl), I think the advice which was given to my noble friend, Lord Lloyd, was substantially the right advice. The noble and learned Earl dissents and I must be content that he does dissent; there is that difference between us. At any rate, I venture to say that I do not think that the able and experienced lawyers who advised the noble Lord ought to be dismissed in that way. I think the less so because, having spent some part of the morning listening to them, I agree with them. There it is. Let us leave it like that, but with this further word: that within a certain ambit, and subject to all proper reservations, some form of consolidation of such a regulation as this is possible. How far it is useful, is a different matter. Certainly after what the noble and learned

1073
Earl has said, that point will be considered; but it is not really an easy matter at all. It ought to be easier. I share entirely the noble and learned Earl's views upon this matter: it ought to be easier to make regulations more intelligible than they are. In particular, as I think, there ought to be no reference to regulations of a certain date simpliciter if those regulations have been amended. You ought to refer to the regulations, as amended by such-and-such other regulations. But this, of course, is a very complicated matter; and so, in an imperfect world, we shall have to try to do our best. As to the larger questions, as I have indicated from the beginning, that is a matter which must stand over until a future date, and it will be very useful when we come to that further discussion to have had the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, who initiated this debate upon it.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his observations. This debate has done two things. It has brought us unearned dividends in the shape of a very illuminating discussion between the Lord Chancellor and an ex-Lord Chancellor—
EARL JOWITT: Each of whom remains convinced that he is right.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, each of them, I presume, remains convinced that he is right—and the debate has also led to our having the benefit of a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, whom we do not hear often enough in your Lordships' House. It has induced in me a sense of some modesty, because I initiated this debate on the ground that the regulation regarding the police was not clear, and it now transpires that my own Motion was not very clear either—at least, it was not properly understood either by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or by Lord Schuster. However, the
1074
debate has had some satisfactory results. It has secured the assurance that, in so far as it can be avoided, this thing will not happen again, and that regulations will be put forward in a manner which will, so far as possible, be intelligible to the ordinary person. We have also had a further assurance about the setting up of a Committee.
I do not propose to deal with the discussion which has taken place between the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Earl, but it does seem to me that my noble friend was not necessarily advocating the consolidation of these police pension regulations. He was really contending that in proper cases there should be consolidation. Of course, that all depends on what we mean by consolidation. It is, on the one hand, a term of art, and, in the strict legal sense, I fully agree that one has to be absolutely certain that as the result of consolidation one is not affecting the rights of individuals under existing legislation. What most of us, who are not technicians in this art, understand by "consolidation" is something rather different. What we understand it to mean is a statement of the existing provisions on a particular subject set out fully. As I understand it, that is the kind of consolidation for which my noble and learned friend has been contending. That being so, I think he is probably right in suggesting that that is possible. It would merely be, as he says, a series of chapters in which the respective rights of different classes of persons under different legislation are set forth in one document so that the public can see and read without having to make their way through masses of material, some of which refers to non-existent regulations. This debate has, I believe, served a useful purpose. I am satisfied with the assurance of the noble and learned Lord who has replied to the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn,