Lords Sitting of 5 May 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Mountevans—Took the Oath.

RUSSIAN WEAPONS IN INDO-CHINA
2.35 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether, seeing that the Communist invaders of Laos are armed with weapons of Russian design made in China, Her Majesty's Government will consider with the French Government the possibility of representations at Moscow and Pekin against the synchronisation of fresh aggression with professions of peace.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the fact that arms originate in a certain country does not necessarily implicate the Government of that country in the use which is made of them. Nevertheless, in the present case it is difficult to avoid the presumption of some degree of complicity. Her Majesty's Government are, of course, deeply concerned that at a time when there have been a few encouraging signs of improvement in the international situation, this fresh aggression should have taken place; but they do not consider that representations in Moscow and Pekin would be advisable at the present moment. Incidentally, the French Government are not represented in Pekin.
LORD VANSITTART: I thank the noble Marquess for his answer and I fully appreciate the reasons he gives. At the same time, I hope he will also appreciate that it is difficult for some of us to find exaggerated hopes in the return of thirty-two soldiers when this naked aggression is going on under our very noses.

LAOS INVASION AND KOREAN TRUCE TALKS
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any evidence, and if so what it is, that the Government in Moscow prompted the recent invasion of Laos and that it is in fact associated with the Korean truce talks.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no direct evidence that the Government of the U.S.S.R. prompted the recent invasion of Laos, nor am I in a position to say that there is any direct association between the invasion of Laos and the Korean Truce talks. The invasion of Laos has clearly been under preparation for many months, and must have been set in motion before the death of Marshal Stalin and the developments which have followed.
LORD VANSITTART: Has not the French Commander in Laos said that the Chinese assistance to the invaders has been stepped up in the last few months and that Czech mortars are being used in the process of the aggression?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I would not pledge my word as to whether or not that exact expression had been used. All I would say was that there was no direct connection between the invasion of Laos and the Korean truce talks. That is our view.
LORD VANSITTART: But the point I was endeavouring to make was that Czech mortars do not drop from Heaven and that they would not be able to be got to Laos without the connivance of both the Chinese and the Russian Governments.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, in these days of parachutes all sorts of weapons of war are dropped from Heaven.
LORD VANSITTART: I think that is a rather thin answer.

BRITAIN AND INDO-CHINA
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether this country has any obligations under the San Francisco Charter to participate in the war in Indo-china.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No, my Lords, such obligations could arise only out of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the Charter, "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression." Under Article 25 members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out such decisions.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer to my question which I shall read in connection with a statement issued by N.A.T.O. about ten days ago which appeared to be usurping the functions of the Security Council.

AUXILIARY FORCES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments and Orders in Council relating to the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949; and to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the
206
Third Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill precedence over the Second Reading of the Pharmacy Bill.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to certain of the Lords Amendments read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Leathers.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it is not the intention of noble Lords on this side of the House, when the time comes, to do other than agree with the Motion that the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be agreed to, but I hope that I may have the indulgence of your Lordships to make one or two observations on the Motion to consider the Amendments. It was from this side of the House that the first words were spoken on the occasion of the introduction of the Government's transport policy almost a year ago. Your Lordships will remember that on that occasion I begged and pressed the Government to consult fully with the British Transport Commission before they formulated legislation to deal with the policy as outlined in the White Paper. Unfortunately, that was not done; and the story that followed has, I think, been an unfortunate one. Legislation was introduced and with drawn. Fresh legislation was then introduced. Then, when the Government saw—and, let it be said here and now, to the great credit of the Minister in another place—that it was absolutely imperative, to satisfy public demand and allay disquiet, the Transport Commission were consulted, and the Bill underwent a radical alteration. What a pity, my Lords, that the whole of this country's transport should go through this upheaval without having the steadying influence of that consultation which, twelve months ago almost to the day—it was on May 15 of last year

207
—we on this side of the House begged the Government to give!
It has been an unhappy experience and I want to say frankly—and I think the whole country agrees with me—that the Government do not come out of this transport debate with a great deal of credit. They have misjudged public opinion and they have misjudged the needs of the country. Their real difficulties are only just starting, and I can only hope that after the Bill receives the Royal Assent to-morrow, as we anticipate it will, and the administrative difficulties become apparent, the Government will have in their minds only one thought—that is, the good of the country as a whole and not the good of any section of the community to which specious electioneering promises have been made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (31) as first printed by the House of Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 4, line 18, at end, insert—
("The report for any period shall set out any direction given by the Minister to the Board during that period")
The Commons agreed to the above Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment thereto:—
In line 2 of the Lords Amendment, at end, add ("and any action taken by the Board in compliance with such direction.")
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons Amendment shown first on the Paper. Your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage of the Bill the Government accepted Lord Silkin's suggestion that the reports of the Road Haulage Disposal Board should set out any Ministerial directions. The Amendment now proposed provides that the reports shall also set out
"any action taken by the Board in compliance with such direction."
The Government are willing to accept this additional wording, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Leathers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares
(".—(1) If it appears to the Commission that it is expedient that any property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking should, instead of being disposed of under section three or section four of this Act, be disposed of under this section and that such disposal will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard under subsection (3) of the said section three, they may make over that property, together with any such rights or obligations of theirs as in their opinion can conveniently be made over therewith, to a company under their control in the shares of which no other person than they themselves have any beneficial interest, with a view to the subsequent sale of the shares of the company:
Provided that the Commission shall not exercise their powers under this subsection without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not give their approval unless it appears to them that the proposed course of action is expedient and will not prejudice the purposes to which the Commission are to have regard as aforesaid.
(2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.
In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, if the Commission, in making up their books for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure, and the requirement that the net value shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over of the property shall be construed as a requirement that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice.
(3) Where the Commission have made over any property to a company under subsection (1) of this section, they shall proceed to the sale of all the shares thereof as soon as is reasonably practicable, and to that end shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, by public notice invite tenders for the purchase (in one

209
parcel) of all those shares, on conditions specified in the notice or ascertainable, in a manner specified in the notice:
Provided that—

(a) no invitation to tender under this section shall be issued without the approval of the Board; and

(b) if it appears to the Commission that the sale of the shares by tender would be inappropriate and would be unlikely to secure the best possible price for the shares they may, with the approval of the Board, sell the shares (in one parcel) otherwise than by tender.

(4) In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender or offer shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister.
(5) No tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board, and the Board shall not approve the acceptance of any such tender or offer unless they are satisfied that the price is a reasonable one having regard to the value of the company's undertaking and the rights conferred by the subsequent provisions of this section.
(6) If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board.
Where Scotland is affected, the Minister shall consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before giving any directions under this subsection.
(7) Where property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section, section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 shall have effect as if—

(a) the company were and at all times since the passing of this Act (or since its incorporation, whichever is the later) had been a subsidiary company of the Commission and the Commission were and at all times since the passing of this Act had been the holding company thereof;

(b) the Commission, in every application made for a licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, being an application made before the making over of the property, had signified to the licensing authority their desire that the provisions of the said section twelve should have effect as respects the company;

(c) the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twelve to Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, included a reference to section fifty-nine of the Transport Act, 1947,
210
subsections (1) to (5) of section six of this Act and Part II of the First Schedule to this Act:

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.
(8) Where the shares of a company are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if the company had, at the time of the transfer of the shares, purchased as or as part of a transport unit all the vehicles owned by it on that date which were then authorised vehicles under an A licence granted to the Commission under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act or were specified in a then pending application for such a licence as vehicles intended to be authorised thereunder and as if all such things had been done as would have fallen to be done if the vehicles had been so purchased; and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection, references in the said First Schedule to transport units, to purchasers of transport units and to motor vehicles sold as or as part of transport units shall be construed accordingly:
Provided that—

(a) the total number of trailers specified by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part I of the said First Schedule in applications for special A licences shall not exceed the number of trailers made over under subsection (1) of this section by the Commission to the company;

(b) in paragraph 4 of the said Part I, the reference to the Commission shall be deemed to be a reference to the company and the reference to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer of the shares.

(9) The Commission, in making over vehicles to a company under subsection (1) of this section, may, by notice to the company, designate certain of those vehicles as additional vehicles, and in that event—

(a) any application by the Commission for an A licence under Part II of the First Schedule to this Act and any licence granted in pursuance of any such application shall lapse so far as it relates to any motor vehicles so designated, but without prejudice to the substitution of any such vehicle for another vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the said Part II;

(b) the Commission shall give all such notices and make all such applications as are necessary to secure that no such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, is included in an A licence so granted, otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution as aforesaid and that any such vehicle, being a motor vehicle, which has been included in such an A licence otherwise than by virtue of such a substitution is removed therefrom;

(c) any such vehicles, being trailers, shall be left out of account for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection.

(10) Any property made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of section five of this Act to have been disposed of as or as part of a transport unit, but if, after any property has been so made over to a company but before the shares of the company have been transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any property of the company (whether part of such property or not) is transferred to the Commission, the property so transferred to the Commission shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to become property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and shall be dealt with accordingly.
(11) A company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section—

(a) may dispose of any of its property in the ordinary course of its business; and

(b) may, with the approval of the Board, dispose of any of its property to the Commission,

but, save as aforesaid, may not dispose of any of its property:
Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to a company, only as respects the period preceding the date on which its shares are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section.
(12) Until the shares of any company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section are transferred in pursuance of the sale thereof under this section, any person employed by the company shall be deemed for the purposes of section ninety-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to terms and conditions of employment of staff), to be employed by the Commission and to be under the direct control of the Commission themselves.
(13) Where a company to which property has been made over under subsection (1) of this section has disposed of all its property, this section shall cease to apply to it unless and until further property is transferred to it under the said subsection (1).")
The Commons agreed to the above new Clause, but proposed the following Amendment thereto:—
In subsection (8), paragraph (a), leave out ("made over under subsection (1) of this section by the Commission to the company") and insert ("in the possession of the company at the time of transfer of the shares")
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, coming to the second Amendment, I beg to move that this House do not insist on the words of the Lords Amendment which it is proposed shall be left out, and agree to the Commons Amendment in lieu thereof. This Amendment affects subsection (8), line 20, of the new clause which allows disposal of the Road Haulage
212
undertaking by way of companies. As the Bill left this House, when companies were being disposed of only that number of trailers which the companies took over from the Commission would have carried an automatic right to "A" licences. The effect of the Commons Amendment is to give that right for all trailers in the companies' possession at the time the shares are sold. This will cover not only the trailers taken over from the Commission but also any extra trailers acquired by companies between the date of the Commission making over the assets and the date of the transfer of the shares. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the words of the Lords Amendment which it is proposed shall be left out, and agree to the Commons Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Leathers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 23, page 33, line 11, leave out from ("be") to end of line 18, and insert ("fourteen, of whom at least two shall be persons appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland as being persons likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements of Scotland;")
The Commons agreed to the above Amendment and made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:—
Fourth Schedule, page 50, leave out lines 22 and 23.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, coming to the third and last Amendment, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons consequential Amendment in the Fourth Schedule, at page 50. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will remember during the Committee stage the acceptance of one of his Amendments, the effect of which was to re instate the provision of the Transport Act of 1947 that four members of the Commission, in addition to the Chairman, should be full-timers. When that Amendment was made, it so happened that we inadvertently omitted to make a consequential Amendment to the Schedule of the Bill which lists the statutory provisions being repealed. This is therefore no more than a consequential and drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Leathers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, this Bill has been fairly fully discussed in your Lordships' House, and I do not think there is a great deal that I need say this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Saltoun has opposed this Bill throughout its passage but, apart from my noble friend and a few supporters, I think that this Bill, in intention at any rate, has secured the general approbation of your Lordships. I believe that it will secure the approbation of the country. Various fears have been expressed about the operation of the Bill, particularly in reference to the law-abiding citizen. We believe that there are adequate safeguards in this Bill for the law-abiding citizen, and we believe that the Bill will be a strengthening to the forces of law and order. We therefore hope that your Lordships will give it a Third Reading this afternoon, so that it may be put upon the Statute Book as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
2.50 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, by common consent the House has given this Bill an easy passage. I think the fact that we have all helped in passing this Bill shows that the House is absolutely united in trying to stop in any way they can these outbursts of violence which, unfortunately, have marked recent years. There is no question of Party feeling about that at all. I must say that, had there not been such outbursts of violence, I should not have liked this Bill at all. I have a profound regard for our police forces, and I trust them very far; but I do not suppose any one of us would think it desirable to pass an Act of Parliament, for instance, authorising the police to take into custody anybody of whom they did not like the look. Quite obviously, that would be going much too far. Whether or not this Bill goes too far is a matter on which differing opinions may be felt. In my own view,
214
having regard to the emergency with which the police are called upon to deal, it does not go too far. At the same time, I very much hope that the Home Secretary will make special note to keep the working of this Bill under observation. If things improve, as I devoutly hope they will, and if it became possible to repeal this Bill and remove it from the Statute Book, then I for one, and I feel the Home Secretary for another, should be only too pleased. In the meantime, the Home Secretary has asked for these powers, and both Houses of Parliament have agreed to give them to him. I can only hope that the process of time will show that the powers are unnecessary. If in fact that proves to be so, then I hope that we shall not hesitate to remove this Bill from the Statute Book.
2.52 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the first thing I have to do to make a correction in the statement I made to your Lordships on a previous occasion when dealing with this Bill. It was not in Glasgow that schoolteachers made use of water-pistols to save themselves from a sporadic outbreak of hooliganism at night, but in a place not a hundred miles from Glasgow; and it was not quite recently, but some years ago. If anybody in that great city, which I admire and love, and of which I am an adoptive son, has received any annoyance from the attribution to that city of an act which I personally consider honourable, I regret it, and of course I regret having misinformed your Lordships upon that point. I want to say at once that my informant was a man of unimpeachable accuracy, and that it was a mistake on my part, because I committed the error of inferring, from what he said to me, rather more than was actually stated. At the same time, I want to say that I believe the weapon in question was never actually used, because the public knowledge that it was there prevented the crime. My friend wrote to me on the subject, saying:
"I told you at the time, to illustrate the fact that if an aggressor gets the idea that he will meet opposition of an unpleasant character, he will think twice before he acts."
That fact reinforces my fear, which I expressed on another occasion, that this Bill may give an aggressor the assurance that he is very unlikely to meet with opposition.

215
My Lords, of course I readily understand that it is impossible for any Government to exhort people to take their own measures to defend themselves. I think that the situation would have to be very much worse than it is to-day to compel the Government to that course; in fact, I think we should reach what the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition describes as a "population armed to the teeth"—I think that was the expression he used. On the other hand, the proposition I have repeated twice to your Lordships—that unless there is in the general population not only a right but a willingness to defend themselves, then no police force however large can ever do so—has never been controverted; nor do I think it can be controverted. Here you have a contradiction which, up to now, has been satisfactorily resolved by the common sense of the people themselves. My objection to this Bill, and my complaint, is that it has brought that contradiction to a definite issue and I do not think that the answer here is a good one. At least, I was not very satisfied with my noble friend Lord Lloyd's answer to the conundrum on the last occasion. I am very much afraid that many people, and especially women, will have more fear of the law than respect for common sense, and in consequence will suffer. I have not yet learnt what the Government's attitude or answer to that is. Do they consider merely as a regrettable incident the fact of a few women being coshed?
There is another point—namely, that the citizen is himself a constable, and it is his duty to go to the aid of the police if he is called upon. The constable is armed with his truncheon or cosh, and presumably his opponent is as well or better armed. If I am called upon to go to the help of the police, is it my duty to fling myself into the battle with my bare hands, or am I to say that I will go home and get my cosh and then come back and help them? I have in my pocket a letter. I do not know what truth there is in that letter. It is from a man who received an injury on being called to the help of the police. To that injury he attributes the loss of his sight and his job. He says that he did not get very much compensation, but that he received a beautiful letter of thanks which
216
he still retains. That is not really a very satisfactory answer. But if the individual is bound to go to that duty with his bare hands, then I am bound to say that I think the law should have been scrutinised when this Bill was going through. However, the Bill is going through—there is no doubt about that—and therefore there rests upon your Lordships the duty of watching carefully how the Government discharge the new responsibility they have undertaken and, if you are not satisfied, of drawing public attention to it from time to time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading no fewer than seventeen Members of your Lordships' House gave us the benefit of their views; on the Committee Stage we had fifty-seven Amendments on the Order Paper, and on the Report Stage of the Bill there were fifteen Amendments on the Order Paper. So after five full and, I think, friendly days of discussion upon this measure, it is probably fair to say that the Bill has been robbed of any element of surprise.
There is, therefore, very little left to say, save to put forward this one point. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, when this Bill arrived in your Lordships' House it was a good Bill, and when it leaves your Lordships' House it will be an even better one. Her Majesty's Government would like to thank those noble Lords who participated, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, and his colleagues on the Benches opposite, for the part they played in improving this Bill: their attitude throughout was, if I may say so, tolerant, well-informed, helpful and constructive. I do not pretend for one moment that this Bill will satisfy all those who believe in the complete nationalisation of all the means of distribution, production and exchange. It is not intended to. I do not pretend for one moment that it will please all those who

217
believe in complete and unfettered private enterprise. It is not intended to. The Bill seeks to derive what is best from both systems. The Bill is a combination, we think, of the best and most workable elements of both systems, and the test throughout that we have made is this—not whether any political dogma can be established or whether any political dogma can be pulled down, but whether the measure itself is in the best interests of the iron and steel industry and of the country. That has been the overriding consideration throughout this Bill.
I trust that it is not too much to hope that the good will which has been shown towards this Bill in its progress through another place and through your Lordships' House may now attend upon it when it passes into law and attaches to this great industry. We hope that it will be accepted, by the industry, by all who earn their living in it, and by the country, with the same good will and tolerance that it has been accepted by Parliament. We feel that the Bill provides a firm and sound foundation for the industry, that it will help this happy industry to go forward to further happiness and prosperity. Finally, we believe that this Bill provides, Once and for all, a chance to take politics out of the iron and steel industry and to take the iron and steel industry out of politics. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.3 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his characteristically graceful tribute and, indeed, for his courtesy and understanding throughout the passage of this Bill, and for that of his noble leader, Lord Salisbury. I can only say again that, although we on this side of the House have done what we believe to be our duty, and have tried to improve this Bill as best we may, we very much regret the Bill. We regret it mainly because we feel that the Government have unnecessarily gone out of their way again to disturb this great industry and to make it inevitable that, with another change of Government, we shall see another Iron and Steel Bill. If there were, as has been said, imperfections in the Bill which is still on the Statute Book, then time would have
218
revealed them and the Bill could have been improved, as time went on, in the knowledge of events and experience. But the Government have chosen the other course, and the responsibility must be upon them. However, I can only say, in seeing the last of this Bill for the time being, that we hope, despite our fears and convictions in this matter, that less harm may be done to this great industry than we fear, and that, despite the action which the Government have taken, the industry will prosper and find a way, not withstanding these handicaps, to discharge its great responsibilities to the nation, upon which so much depends.
3.6 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Bill came to us a good one; I think it is leaving us a better one. It satisfies me that it has solved the problem of what one may describe as the battledore and shuttlecock of the industry. Like all thinking people, I am deeply disturbed by the idea of great industries being tossed from side to side over the net like a shuttlecock. At the same time, I am utterly unprepared to accept the doctrine that one Party in the State may gradually, little by little, spread State ownership, while another Party is morally bound not to reverse the position. To my mind—and I feel very deeply on this—such a wide expansion of State owner ship would in the long run bring us to the Communist State, de facto if not de jure.
I believe that a large number of people in the Labour Party would agree with me in those sentiments, but they are very much taken up with the short-term disadvantages of private ownership, as they see them, and they tend to be distracted from this very much longer-term danger. In this Bill, I think moderate Labour can see that they are safeguarded against many of what they regard as the drawbacks of private ownership, without having to risk this long-term danger. If that is the case, I do not see why the problem of the "shuttlecocking" of the iron and steel industry should not be solved for all time. As I say, the Bill provides them with many safeguards. For instance, there is one safeguard which I particularly welcomed. I refer to the provision that there shall be consultation three months before the closing down of any works. And even if the closing down becomes almost inevitable, there is power

219
in the Minister's hands to avert that closing by putting up the money to run the works himself, if he should consider that to be the lesser of two evils. The Bill is full of safeguards of that particular nature.
One other criticism of private ownership is that in the future those concerned will not be able to raise the capital necessary to keep great industries modernised and up to date. I am not speaking now of the initial effort, which everyone must agree is an onerous and heavy task. But, provided that we realise that for an industry to be healthy and modern it must be nourished, this industry should be able in the future to raise its own money. In the case of renewals, are we going to suffer for ever a position in which the Inland Revenue compute as profits and take away money which really should be destined to replace machinery? I do not think that that situation is going to last very much longer. As for new capital expenditure, I believe that by a combination of loan capital and equity capital, raised from the public and from the institutions, and from ploughed-back profits, money will be there in future. But it will be there, we must remember, only if we allow the industry to be properly nourished.
Of course, there are other safeguards in the Bill, but I do not propose to detail all of them. Before closing, however, I should like to say a word of thanks to the spokesmen of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party who said kind words about an Amendment of mine on the Report stage. Only strict adherence to the rules of order prevented my rising a second time to thank them then. Finally, I should like to say how much we appreciate the way the Bill has been handled by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and his able lieutenant, Lord Mancroft. I feel that the latter, at all events, has emerged from his first major encounter with very great credit.
3.10 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, we have had our battle over this Bill, and, thanks very largely to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and Lord Mancroft, it has been a very good-tempered and good-humoured battle, fought, in fact, with many of the courtesies which used to distinguish battles in the days of armour
220
and of chivalry. Now it is over and the Bill is to become an Act, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that all that remains for us to do at this juncture is to wish good fortune to the iron and steel industry. One must wish an industry of such fundamental, vital importance to the fortunes of this country great prosperity under this dispensation. In connection with both this Bill and the Transport Bill I have expressed on more than one occasion my concern for the prospects of any industry being nationalised, denationalised and renationalised. Without any regard for politics, I do not believe that under such a process as that any industry can possibly prosper but must eventually come to ruin. Therefore, I have always expressed the hope that in the fullness of time we may work out some compromise in these matters. In both the Transport Bill and the Iron and Steel Bill I have, if I may say so, detected traces of a Government wish to meet that point. Here and there I have distinctly seen a certain wish to affect a reconciliation between free enterprise and nationalisation, and it was really in regard to that that I rose to say a few words.
During the proceedings on Committee stage of the Iron and Steel Bill I was much struck by a proposal put forward by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, about the possibility of Government holdings in these companies. There was an interesting discussion on that point, although time did not permit of its being gone into as thoroughly as perhaps it deserved to be. Looking into the future, I hope that that point may be borne in mind, because I feel strongly that it opens out yet another way of effecting a compromise between rival views as to how our industries should be carried on, a compromise which would be of great benefit to the industries themselves. I rise to express strongly the hope that the point put forward by the noble Earl may be carefully considered when other matters of this sort come to be discussed.
3.13 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I think that, as Leader of the Opposition, I should endorse what has been said by the last speaker, Lord Winster, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the debt which, not for the first time, the House owes to its Leader and to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, because,

221
although it is the fact that we differ fundamentally about this Bill, we did agree to differ. Tempers were not ruffled, and that in itself, to my mind, is a great advantage, which we enjoyed largely owing to the noble Marquess, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and also, in large measure, to my noble friends, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston and Lord Silkin, who spoke for this side of the House. And may it always be so. But do not let it be thought that because our discussions are amicable and friendly that is any indication whatever that we do not feel deeply and sincerely what we are saying.
If you take the view of the prospects of this country that I do, your Lordships will realise how vitally important this matter is. I am not being pessimistic; I think I am being only a realist when I say that this country is faced with a terrific problem. I believe that unless we have an iron and steel industry about as efficient as that industry can be made, our difficulties are going to be much greater. Like coal, iron and steel is a fundamental, a basic, industry, upon which many other industries depend. It must not be looked upon as an industry by itself: it is the underlying base of many other industries. If we are to come satisfactorily out of the trouble which is awaiting us ahead, it behoves us, apart altogether from politics, to make this industry as efficient as human ingenuity can make it. I regard that as vital to our salvation.
Having said that, let me just say this: frankly, my anxiety is that there are too many small concerns. I am not fool enough to pose as an expert—there are many experts in your Lordships' House—but I have given some study to this matter. I believe we ought to have a smaller number of larger concerns. I base my remarks on the recent Report, which is the source of my information. I believe there is an optimum output per works which, speaking from memory, should be round about 1,000,000 tons, whereas the average output per works is round about 300,000tons. That seems to show that if we had fewer works and larger outputs, we should be in a better position. I believe that that is a serious problem which is going to confront the statesmen of this industry and of this country. I am not wise enough to know
222
what the answer is, but I know that if you have a large number of rival concerns, each under separate ownership, it is going to prove impossible to bring about those amalgamations or, what is rather more drastic than amalgamations, those shuttings down of works here and there and the enlarging and blossoming out of others, which is the kind of process we may have to face up to.
Lord Keynes once said that the ownership of shares did not matter very much; what mattered was the way in which a concern was managed. That is true with regard to a great number of industries. It was with regard to those other industries and not to iron and steel that I referred to the possibility of joint share holding, about which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was good enough to make a complimentary reference. I have always felt that in this particular industry—that is, iron and steel—we could not get out of our difficulty on those lines, for we shall have to look at the problem as a whole and reorganise this industry from top to bottom. I feel that to be the trouble. If this industry is to be reorganised, there is a vast amount to be said for the State ownership of shares until the time when the industry has been reorganised. I am very sorry that noble Lords have broken up that idea before the organisation has been started, because, in the process of time and by the force of circumstances, that is the idea you will be forced to adopt. After all, we have seen this occur many times in private enterprise. The Morris and Austin undertakings came together. And I believe that along the lines on which business is conducted to-day, amalgamation will become necessary in the iron and steel industry on an even larger scale. I believe that the force of circumstances will drive us to it.
I confess that I thought this was a bad Bill when it came to this House. I think that, with the alterations your Lordships have made in this House, it is a rather less bad Bill than it was; but I still think it is a bad Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, appealed to what he called "moderate Labour." He seemed to think that this Bill in its present condition would satisfy moderate Labour. I suppose I am a fair representative of that school of thought. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that this Bill does not in the

223
least satisfy me, or those of my school of thought. Though I do not issue any threats, or anything of that sort, I am bound to say that I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, said in his speech just now. It seems to us inevitable that if, in the whirligig of time, a Labour Government is once more restored to power, there will have to be another Bill dealing with the iron and steel industry. I am certainly not going to attempt to forecast the provisions of that Bill now, but I hope that if and when the time does come to introduce such a Bill, statesmen will look at it coolly and deliberately, in the light of the circumstances then existing, to see what needs to be done.
I felt I was bound to say that, because that is the reaction which I have about this Bill. For the rest, I entirely agree that we should keep steel out of politics, and politics out of steel, if that will prevent politicians from interfering with the running of the industry. No sensible Socialist wants to do that at all. We want industries to be run by the people who understand them, and not to have them interfered with at all. I sincerely hope that good luck will attend the iron and steel industry. I hope that all the difficulties which I foresee about getting the necessary capital to make their works really up to date—and in my view they have got to be the best in the world—will not materialise. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I hope that the tax-gatherers will not prevent them from getting to get her the necessary capital to make their works up to date. However, I must say that I view the future of this great industry, on which so much depends, with real concern and anxiety.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PHARMACY BILL
3.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I hope, in the course of a comparatively short speech, to be able to commend to your Lordships this quite uncontroversial Bill. I feel that the Bill has the support of Her Majesty's Government; I know that members of the Opposition view it
224
favourably, and that it has the support of the Pharmaceutical Society. There is no need for me to remind your Lordships of the work of chemists in the country in general, or of the responsibility which they now have with the arrival of more complicated drugs. It gives me, as a member of a profession which works closely with the chemists, great pleasure to be moving the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House.
The purpose of the Bill, put rather generally, is to tidy up the law relating to pharmacy, which is complicated and full of rather difficult technicalities. To appreciate that, I should like briefly to go over a little of the past history, which I think will make the Bill more easily understandable. The Pharmaceutical Society was founded in 1841, and obtained a Royal Charter two years later. The Pharmacy Act, 1852, placed upon the Society the responsibility for maintaining a Register of pharmaceutical chemists and of examining candidates who wished to register. Only registered persons could be called pharmaceutical chemists, but there was no compulsion to join the Society. One curious thing about that Act was that registered medical practitioners could not register as pharmaceutical chemists, and any pharmaceutical chemist who became a registered medical practitioner had his name removed from the Pharmaceutical Register.
The Pharmacy Act, 1868, set up a Register of chemists and druggists and the people registered became associates of the Society. One effect of that Act was that only people on these two registers could sell or keep "open shop" for the sale or dispensing of poisons. There was then a third Pharmacy Act, passed in the year 1898, which, among other technical matters, abolished associate-ship of the Society, and enabled chemists and druggists to become members of the Society, whereas previously they could only become associates. In 1908, there was the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, which, among other important things, demanded a certain practical preliminary training for candidates, and at the same time, purely for convenience, divided the examination into two parts. In 1933 there was passed a further Poisons and Pharmacy Act which established a statu-

225
tory committee, with power to disqualify and to keep a certain discipline, and which made membership of the Pharmaceutical Society synonymous with being a registered pharmaceutical chemist or a registered chemist and druggist. That, briefly, is the past history of the Society.
I feel that the best way to deal with the Bill is to pass on at once to a consideration of the various clauses, which I believe will be quite easy to understand. Clause 1 of the Bill abolishes the dual Register and deals with the setting up of a single Register in its place. Clause 2 makes it possible for the Council of the Society to appoint the examiners to con duct the examinations, rather than that they should be appointed under the Charter, as was the case under the 1852 and 1868 Acts. That procedure has now become obsolete, and this merely changes it to what has become common practice. Clause 3 of the Bill enables the Society to make by-laws to change the annual Register, and to publish it in other months than January. Clause 4 makes it clear that the Council of the Society can make by-laws requiring candidates for examination to produce certain evidence of practical training and general education, because in the past there was some uncertainty whether the Council could insist on that. Clause 5 enables the Council to register persons holding a degree in Pharmacy which has been given by a university in Great Britain. Such degrees have been granted for some time now, but, by some curious anomaly, people holding degrees in Great Britain could not be on the Register, although under the Medical Practices and Pharmacists' Act, 1947, it was possible for the Council to register persons with a degree from a university outside Great Britain.
Clause 6 extends the scope of the benevolent fund to cover dependants completely. The previous Acts covered merely members or past members, with their widows and children, and did not include certain other dependants who might need assistance from the benevolent fund. Clause 7 does away with the phrase, "students, apprentices or assistants," that phrase having become obsolete—"students"is now the general term. Secondly, it takes away the disqualification preventing registered medical practitioners from becoming registered as pharmaceutical chemists. At the same
226
time, it takes away the maximum from the retention fee of £2, which has been the custom in the past, and allows for the amount to be fixed from time to time by by-laws, which will be subject to the approval of the Privy Council. Clause 8 confirms the existing Charter and allows for its amendment. Clause 9 provides for the various amendments and repeals to which I have referred, and provides that until they come into force, the present Act shall continue. Clause 10 is the interpretation clause, and Clause 11 is the short title. The Bill has been exhaustively examined by members of the profession, and it meets with their entire approval. I trust that, with the rather brief outline It have given, your Lordships will be pleased to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to add my support to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. This is one of the examples current at the present time of the raising of a particular body of people from one status to another. The Bill improves the status of those who are chemists and who are professionally qualified in that respect. The object of this Bill, of course, is also to remove those anomalies and anachronisms in the Pharmacy Acts, which extend back to 1852, as was mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. The intention of this Bill is to prepare for the consolidation of the whole series of Acts which have gone before. It is to disentangle the constitution of the Pharmaceutical Society from its statutory duties. The effect of this Bill will be to put the statutory duties into the Act and the constitution into a new Charter. The Charter is now before the Privy Council and it is hoped to synchronise the appointed day under the Act and the granting of the new Charter.
Clauses 1 and 2 substitute for the two existing statutory qualifications—chemists and druggist, and pharmaceutical chemists—one only, namely, pharmaceutical chemist. The clauses also amalgamate the two existing Registers into one. It is the intention of the Society to make existing pharmaceutical chemists Fellows of the Society, to maintain

227
differentiation. The present chemists and druggists will remain members, M.P.S. I mention these facts because they are vitally important in the professional status of the organisation. I must, however, draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that it is not only in chemists' shops, or with the assistance of qualified people, that drugs can be sold. A very large quantity of drugs are sold at grocers' and other shops. It is true that they are only drugs which are more or less harmless—aspirin and things of that kind—but a large proportion of drugs are, in fact, obtainable in shops in which there is no chemist in attendance. This Bill is one to which I hope the House will give a Second Reading. It has the support of the Ministry of Health and of the Privy Council. It is a step towards further strengthening the Pharmaceutical Society, and so raising the whole profession, as a professional body. It is much to be hoped that the Statute Law Revision Committee will get to work on a consolidation of the Pharmacy Acts.
3.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise merely to indicate to the House that those associated with me on this Bench are not unfavourable to the passage of this Bill into law. They are somewhat intrigued by the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill, because when we have been reorganising or reconditioning other professional organisations it has been chiefly by Government Bills. We hope, however, that, notwithstanding the fact that this is a Private Member's Bill, the work which will accrue from it will be equally good with that of the others.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I rise, as one who was responsible for the passing of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, which was then a highly controversial measure, to say that I entirely concur in the amendment of that Act which is to be effected by this Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, we have already discussed two measures this afternoon which may be considered as highly controversial, but they were both discussed in a very amicable manner. I am glad that it falls to my lot to continue that measure of agreement and friendliness, and to say, on
228
behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, that not only does he fully support this Bill but he has given every facility possible from his Department to help its passage. With those few words, I bless the Bill on behalf of the Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POWERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
3.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE rose to call attention to the new powers and responsibilities accruing to this House in consequence of recent changes in legislative procedure; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion on the Order Paper for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill, prompted me to offer one or two remarks to your Lordships about the growing powers of this House. It did not seem suitable that I should speak on the Motion for the consideration of those Amendments, because I desired to travel a little more widely than the Transport Bill. Indeed, the Transport Bill is immaterial for my purpose, because it is to changes in constitutional structure or incipient changes in constitutional structure to which I wish to draw attention. I would add that these observations and appraisements are my own, and I am not entitled nor am I seeking to involve any of my noble friends in them. I suggest, however, that they are factual, and I offer them to your Lordships for your consideration. I trust that they will be examined by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton (who is himself a very distinguished Parliamentary statesman here and has been in both Houses) on the basis of facts and whether they are true and accurate.
As I say, the stimulus for making these remarks is that during the Transport Bill we found that a large portion of work which is normally done elsewhere was made the sole responsibility of this House. There was not sufficient manpower elsewhere to set up the system of Standing Committees and, therefore, it was necessary to leave to this House a great

229
deal of work which is normally done elsewhere. That is the reason why I put on the Paper a Motion that I would call attention to the increasing powers and responsibilities of this House. I shall be brief, and some of the matter to which I shall refer is well known.
First of all, the House of Lords is constantly increasing in power. It is increasing in power because, for one thing, it is increasing in numbers. Every Party contributes to that. I myself am a happy and proud beneficiary of that system. But I daresay that your Lord ships would be surprised if you looked at the numbers. I have taken the last four quinquennia, and the number of Members of your Lordships' House has increased remarkably. In 1936 it was 749; after the next five years it was 761; it then rose to 812 and now stands at 835 fully qualified Lords of Parliament, able to come here at any time and exercise to the full their privileges as Members of this House. Now that, in itself, must be a source of strength, and must be a source of strength to that type of what we in this House should call, I suppose, the stable opinion to which these noble Lords will naturally incline. We do not look for it to be a pool of revolutionary sentiment; we know that at any time it can be called upon by leaders of conservative opinion—I mean conservative with a small "c"—as a reserve against any changes which they do not like.
It is sometimes said, "You complain of the increasing power of the House of Lords, but you have forgotten the Parliament Act." I have not forgotten the Parliament Act at all. The Parliament Act delimited the extreme boundary beyond which your Lordships were not allowed to go. In point of fact, it is interesting that the first Parliament Act (which, of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, remembers so well) was used on only one occasion, and that was for the passage of a Bill already much tested, an excellent Bill—the Welsh Church Bill. Beyond that, it covered no Bill except one a few years later—the second Parliament Act, which was passed, under the first, for the purpose of getting the Steel Bill through; but in point of fact the Bill never had any shelter from the second Parliament Act. The Parlia-
230
ment Acts must be regarded as a perimeter. I do not think your Lordships have shown the least sign of wishing to transgress beyond it. The third thing that makes for great strength in this House is that we, the 835 Lords of Parliament, have entire control of our own procedure. We have control of this House and therefore it is quite possible—indeed it is happening—to get far greater power for this House by methods of procedure than by any changes of law which might be forbidden by the Parliament Act.
There are four ways in which the procedure of the Chamber is governed. First, there are Statutes—there are in practice only two. The second is by rulings of the Chair. We have no Speaker here in that sense, and no recorded rulings of Order in this House, so that that cannot govern us. The third way is that of Standing Orders. Standing Orders are frequently suspended. They are very interesting Standing Orders, and some of them are effective, although, as has happened to-day, they are frequently suspended. The fourth is by practice; and if any noble Lords share my serious alarm at the growing power of the House of Lords it is because they fear that by the use and practice in relations between the two Houses the power of this House may be increased in a way that many of us would think undesirable. It must be recognised that in the relations between the two Houses of Parliament it so happens that one House makes the claim and the other does not resist: the one encroaches and the other recedes. The relative powers of the two Houses were defined in 1671.
Before I conclude, I want to draw attention to something which has nothing to do with any particular Government but which adds very considerably to the influence and power of this House, and that is delegated legislation. In the modern State it is quite impossible to pass specific Acts for every purpose, and so what is done is to delegate to the Minister power to propose to both Houses of Parliament what are in fact miniature Bills—and not, indeed, always miniature: sometimes they are quite substantial measures. That power is conceded by the mother Act and exercised by the Minister as time goes on; and when it comes to the use of those powers there is no question about inequality between the two Houses, On the contrary, there is complete parity. Recently the

231
noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, made a speech about the control of exports to China. An order had been made causing ships to require a licence to carry goods to China. It was in the power of this House by one single vote to bring to an end that action of the Government.
There is a much more dangerous side from the point of view of those who do not agree with the current opinion, and that is the Affirmative Resolution. Many Acts say that the Minister can do this or that, subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. There is such a provision, although I am not sure how it will work, in the present Bill for the Federation of Central Africa. Certain things will be subject to Affirmative Resolution. So long as the political view of the other place is the same as that of this House it does not matter: we can work together in company and in harness. But supposing that the political view elsewhere differs from that here, and supposing that an Act passed by the Government demands an Affirmative Resolution of this House, then noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will see that there will have been placed on their successors the duty to secure assent to things to which the House might not normally be sympathetic. Last year there were over a thousand of these orders. Under the system of delegated legislation the powers of the House of Lords are constantly subject to increase.
Finally, I come to what happened the other day in connection with the Transport Bill. I know nothing of the technical aspects of the Bill, but I listened to the debate with great interest. I am not expressing, any view on the merits of the Bill: it is the procedure I am talking about. The Transport Bill was introduced into another place. It was a very heavy measure. A good deal had to be done. Unfortunately, as the result of the Election, there was not the manpower available to the Government to set up a Standing Committee. The Bill, therefore, had to be taken on the Floor of the House and discussion was limited, and so a great deal of work which normally would have been given to the House of Commons was transferred to this House. We had particularly interesting debates and long sittings. I enjoyed myself, for it is always a privilege to be here when this House is having a debate. We had speeches from
232
the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth: speeches of very great ability, expounding one point of view; and speeches from noble Lords on the other side of the House expounding another. We sat late—until after twelve o'clock midnight on one occasion—and a great deal was done. When we came to the finish, the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 313):
"…the manner in which this Bill has proceeded and the improvements which have been made in it are very strong evidence that this Chamber has a most valuable part to play in framing of legislation."
He had just said (col. 312):
"…nearly a hundred Amendments out of a total of 211…will have been incorporated in the Bill in its passage through your Lord ships' House and, of these, over thirty must rank as major or important items."
Your Lordships brought experience, skill, and knowledge to the subject. But our discussions lacked one thing, and that was public authority. I am not speaking of the Minister. Noble Lords, speaking in this House, speak for themselves and not for anybody else. No one sends them here. They bring all their skill and experience, as I have said, to the public service; and they produce, as Lord Leathers said, some most useful results. All they lack is public approval. The Amendments we made were sent back to another place, and then we found that a Time Resolution had been passed. So no sooner had our Amendments gone back for public approval than they all tumbled into the pit; few were discussed, although several of them came under the Resolution of 1678, which asserted that changes in finance must originate in another place.
I am not complaining of another place, or attacking the Government. I am merely attempting to establish the constitutional fact that something has happened, which appears to have cast on this House increased powers and responsibilities, including powers and responsibilities for finance. I have not put any tail to my Resolution. If I had, I think I should have used the form of the old Resolution that was passed, I believe, in the seventeenth century, that the powers of the House of Lords have increased, are increasing and should be diminished. But I do not want to enter into any controversial matter at all. I merely want to mention the facts that I have mentioned.

233
I ask the noble Viscount, from the wealth of his Parliamentary experience, to say whether he can find anything factually wrong with what I have presented to the House this afternoon. I beg to move for Papers.
3.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I must say that, when I saw the noble Viscount's Motion on the Order Paper, I was rather puzzled as to what it was all about and what it meant. After listening to his charming and interesting speech, I must admit that I am still completely at sea as to what he is after. He has travelled very wide and I certainly want to pay him and the House the courtesy of dealing, so far as I can at a moment's notice, because I had not the faintest idea what the noble Viscount was going to say, with the points that he has raised. In the course of his speech, he said that the powers of this House had greatly increased because a great many more Peers had come here in the last seven or eight years. Well,—they have. Nearly all of them are sitting on the Opposition Benches, and I am delighted that they have come here, because they have contributed very greatly to the value of our debates. They have certainly, if I may say so (I am not quite sure that this was not a slight condemnation on the part of the noble Viscount), acquired the conservative—or some similar adjective—spirit of this place. But, of course, if he says that there are too many noble Lords with legislative powers in this House, I must remind him—though he said, quite fairly, that he was not speaking for his Party in this matter—that we did invite the noble Viscount's Party and the Liberal Party, who were most anxious to come into consultation with us, to take part in a three-Party Conference at which the whole question of the composition and the powers of the House could be discussed. I very much regret, and I think some noble Lords opposite equally regret, that that invitation was not accepted; but certainly the opportunity was offered.
Then the noble Viscount said that our power increases because there is no one to control our procedure. That is true. There is not even anybody to control the noble Viscount, but we get on, I think, pretty well. The remarkable thing is that, although in a sense there are no Rules
234
of Order, except one about reading speeches (which I wish were more observed), and another about irrelevance or impertinence, which might sometimes be brought to our attention, we get on very well, because we are an orderly, practical and common-sense Assembly.
The noble Viscount went on to say that lie found a very good example of the increase in the powers of this House in what had taken place on the Transport Bill. He said that, because of lack of manpower in another place, this Bill came to us with a good deal of it undiscussed, and that that gave to this House a new power. One of the advantages of this House, surely, is that if measures have not been fully discussed in another place, there is the opportunity to discuss them here. But both Parties, as well as the country, have found that extremely convenient. If the noble Viscount really wants me to discuss the Transport Bill, I would venture to remind him that, though it is true that a certain amount came to us here which was undiscussed, it was nothing compared to the amount of the Transport Bill of 1947 which came to us here undiscussed in another place. I am speaking from memory, but I think am right in saying that, when the Transport Bill of 1947 came to this House—one of the Ministers who was in charge will correct me if I am wrong—no fewer than thirty-five clauses of that Bill had never been discussed at all in another place. The total number of clauses in my noble friend's Bill which the House has just passed is thirty-four—so we certainly start a good deal better in that matter.
There is nothing novel in all this. The noble Viscount said that things had not been discussed. The last thing I am going to do to-day is to criticise procedure in another place; I am certainly not going to do that; but I think it is fair to say, as this question has been raised, that there certainly was nothing novel or unusual, and certainly nothing improper, in our proceedings upon the Transport Bill here, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will bear me out in that. As was right, we devoted a great deal of time to it, time which the Leader of the Opposition said he thought ought to be devoted to it; and day by day we agreed on how much should be taken during the day, and we did devote

235
a good deal of time to it. I think it was something like thirty-eight hours altogether. We passed a certain number of Amendments, and a certain number of Amendments were rejected because the Government felt that those contravened the broad structure and purpose of the Bill. The ground of criticism from the Opposition here was not on the Amendments which we passed, because—I think I am right—every single Amendment which this House sent down to another place was passed without any Division.
The criticism of us by the Opposition—a perfectly fair criticism from their point of view—was not that we had made Amendments in the Bill, but that we either had not accepted Amendments from the Opposition or that, where we had made Amendments, we had not gone as far as the Opposition would have liked us to go. That is a perfectly fair criticism from any Opposition. That is what took place under the Bill. In passing, I may say that though another place did not discuss all our Amendments, they did devote to it there—this is purely factual—more time than we without any closure or guillotine devoted to it here, on the Committee and the Report stages. But certainly I think it was in all our minds that the Amendments which we had passed, many of which were in answer to matters raised by the Opposition, others of which were in order to give effect to, or to consider, undertakings given in another place, would be generally acceptable—indeed, as your Lordships have seen to-day, all our Amendments were accepted in another place. Only two or three small Amendments in lieu have come back, and they are really qualifying or adjusting Amendments.
Then the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that a new power had been exercised by this House with regard to privilege Amendments. It is important that we should be quite clear as to the position between the two Houses over privilege Amendments. Where matters of finance and charges upon the public are raised, of course the other place has a predominant position; and if an Amendment is made here which imposes upon the public a charge, a financial obligation, that is a privilege Amendment. It is for the Speaker of the House of Commons to decide whether an Amendment
236
is what is technically called a privilege Amendment, and the other place can always reject an Amendment of this House on the ground of privilege. I do not remember a case where an Amendment has been objected to on the ground of privilege, where this House has insisted. But that does not mean that large numbers of privilege Amendments are not passed. They are passed because it is the common desire, both of the other place and of this House, that those Amendments should be made. I may say, in passing, that the privilege Amendments in this particular Bill were very small, in the sense that they affect only a very small amount of money—I am told that it is something like £50,000.
In the structure of the levy your Lordships amended the one-ton figure to 30 cwt. Another Amendment gave an extra £2 million to the Transport Commission, which I admit I asked the House to do at the last moment, because it had only just been discovered; but we all agreed that it was right. And we also gave an extra six months of interest to the Transport Commission. But those Amendments affected only the levy, which itself is not a charge, in the sense of privilege. It is not a charge on the public, it is a charge on the owner of the vehicles. The issue of privilege arises, as it were, only by a side wind because a small proportion of the vehicles which will be subject to the levy are owned either by Government Departments—it may be the Post Office or perhaps the War Office; I think certainly the Post Office pay the levy—or by local authorities. Therefore the Speaker ruled that, by that side wind, there was introduced into those Amendments a small element of privilege, merely by reason of the fact that a very small proportion of the vehicles concerned were Government or local authority owned.
But let the noble Viscount observe that the passing of privilege Amendments is something which the House of Commons would be most unwilling to see this House part with—for a reason which your Lordships will see is very plain. Once a Bill has come here from another place the only way in which an Amendment can be made which the other place may very much want to have made in the Bill, is by this House passing an Amendment and sending it down to the other place. The Leader of the Opposition will certainly

237
remember that for decades all Parties have maintained that procedure, in which this House has passed a privilege Amendment in order to give the other place the chance of having made in the Bill an Amendment which everybody wants to have made. Therefore it is nothing novel or revolutionary; it is a procedure which has always been followed, and I think always will be followed, as long as we have a revising Chamber—and certainly a revising Chamber I am sure this country will always wish to have. That is not a matter which gives rise to any conflict between the Parties, and there has been no sort of accretion of new powers to this House in recent months or years in that respect.
The noble Viscount (I hope I managed to take the points he made) also said that this House had acquired new powers by reason of delegated legislation. My Lords, I am not fond of delegated legislation, any more than the Leader of the Opposition is—certainly not in the sense that you should delegate more than is necessary. I am equally certain that any Government that one can visualise as likely to be in power, not because of the size of its majority in one House or the other, will have, within reason, to make use of delegated legislation. I am also very sure that it is extremely desirable that in delegated legislation the delegation should be only so much as is necessary for the purpose of the Bill. What I may call the "Uncle Tom Cobley and all" clause—I mean the clause which gives the Minister power to make an order for anything hereafter his public servants may think is useful—is anathema. I am not claiming this as a Party point, but I would say that, on the whole, the trend is not to increase the amount of delegated legislation but, I should rather hope, to reduce it, because as we get into more normal times none of us wants unnecessarily to preserve controls.
We may differ on whether this or that control ought to go, but broad and large I think we may be able to get further away from the vast number of Orders in Council and, therefore, reduce the amount of delegated legislation. If we have to have delegated legislation, then, of course, we have to try to keep some control by Parliament over the Execu-
238
tive. This is done, and always has been done, by the practice of being able to pray against an Order in Council. That has always been the power of either House. And where you get a very special case, something of particular importance that has to be done by Order in Council, there is the alternative of an Affirmative Resolution. I think that is a good plan. I am not going into it to-day, but we had an interesting debate, in which the Leader of the Opposition and I were the protagonists, as to how we should deal with the decentralisation scheme of my noble friend Lord Leathers when it comes forward. I think the Affirmative Resolution, in special cases, is a good thing; but there is nothing odd, certainly nothing new, in having that dealt with by both Houses of Parliament. After all, this is only the procedure which takes place on a Bill. The noble Viscount said it would cause great difficulty if the House of Commons passed an Affirmative Resolution and the House of Lords did not pass an Affirmative Resolution; or, conversely, if this House passed an Affirmative Resolution and the House of Commons did not. Clearly, if this House passed an Affirmative Resolution and the House of Commons did not, the Order could not be made, because there would not be an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I would remind the noble Viscount that he was dealing with hypothesis and not with any matter of fact. I do not recall—the noble Viscount will remind me if I am wrong—a case of an Affirmative Resolution being passed in the other place where this House has refused to pass a similar Affirmative Resolution. I think I am right in saying that. I agree you can put a hypothetical case; but the noble Viscount will forgive me if I say that he is not going to make our flesh creep by suggesting all sorts of things that might happen, when they do not happen in practice. You can say all sorts of things. You can say that every "backwoodsman" will come here and vote against every Bill that is introduced. I know that that is a possibility; but one knows that it does not happen. The sound thing about the English Constitution is the successful, though illogical, way it works. Things of this sort which you can conjure up do not, in fact, happen. I agree that in theory it would he possible for the House of Com-

239
mons to pass an Affirmative Resolution and for this House to reject a similar Resolution. But it would be something very unusual, and a pretty strong case would have to be made out to bring that about. But supposing that it did so happen, it is not very different from the process that has always taken place with regard to a Bill. It is competent for this House to reject a Bill which the House of Commons has passed, subject, of course, to the process of the Parliament Act, though that is quite another matter.
EARL JOWITT: I think the noble Viscount is quite right. I do not think this House has ever refused to pass an Affirmative Resolution where one has been passed by the other place. But, theoretically, whereas in the case of a Bill you have got all the machinery of the Parliament Act behind you, in the other case, that of refusing to pass an Affirmative Resolution or differing from the other House in a Prayer, theoretically you have not the machinery of the Parliament Act. I think that is what my noble friend Lord Stan gate has in mind.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I agree with that. The noble and learned Earl put it very fairly, but we are discussing what I believe is a purely theoretical thing. Of course, if a Government wished to insist on the provisions of an Order being made effective, when this House had rejected it, the Government could use the machinery of the Parliament Act. It would be easy to put a clause into a Bill, instead of having it made subject to a Resolution. Treating it as an academic point, I agree with the noble and learned Leader of the Opposition.
On the whole merits of the case, on the reality of the points which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has raised, I think the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition will probably find himself in agreement with me, rather than with the noble Viscount. I apologise if I have spoken at some length, but as the noble Viscount was raising matters which did go rather deep into our Constitutional practice and the relations between the Houses, I thought that I ought to be clear as to what the actual position was, and clear on the bearing of recent events upon the position. I would sum up by saying that in fact no new powers have been conferred upon us; we have not
240
sought to arrogate to ourselves any new powers. With the normal way in which the two Houses have worked together, and owing to the good sense in all parts of this House, it all seems to me to be working very well at the present time, and we need not be anxious about the way we are discharging existing responsibilities. I think we do it pretty well. Certainly no new powers and responsibilities have accrued to this House in consequence of "recent changes in legislative procedure." In fact, so far as I am aware, there have not been any changes in our legislative procedure. Therefore, I do not think we are on the verge of a Parliamentary or even a procedural revolution, and we can all sleep quiet in our beds.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we all regard the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, as the watchdog of democracy. Whenever he barks, I expect to find myself barking by his side. But on this occasion I cannot see that he has made out a case. He referred to a Resolution to the effect that:
"the powers have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished."
That Resolution, by the way, was not, so far as I remember, a Resolution relating to the House of Lords. In the seventeenth century there may have been a Resolution—I do not recall it—but there was the famous Dunning Resolution in the House of Commons, in the time of George III. That was to the effect that
"The powers of the Crown have increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished"
That is only a small point, and I bring it up only for the sake of historical record.
There is, however, another Parliamentary point which I should like to mention, because it is of special interest to me. The noble Viscount observed that when the Labour Government introduced the Parliament Bill they did so in order to get the Iron and Steel Bill through. I ventured to suggest here, in this House, that that was so. But I was immediately replied to by Mr. Morrison, who said, in effect, that it was nothing of the sort; that the Bill was introduced on its own merits, and on grounds of constitutional principle. To that I well remember replying here by saying that I was not accustomed to using strong language but

241
that, in the circumstances, I could not refrain from saying: "tut tut." Now the noble Viscount says quite frankly that they introduced it for the sake of getting the Iron and Steel Bill through.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I was just making an observation. I said that that was frequently said. But I was not a member of the Government to which the noble Viscount refers, and I could not possibly commit my noble and learned Leader, or any of his distinguished colleagues on this Bench, as to the real purpose of the myself thought it might be for the purpose which I mentioned.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Viscount only made an observation, and I only made an observation—the House will take note of both of them. As to the reasons why, according to the noble Viscount, the powers of this House have increased, one of those reasons is that the numbers of the House have increased, and increased with great rapidity. As he said, they now total well over 800. Indeed, I have mentioned in this House that the number of new Peerages in the present century has been 500. But can it be said that the powers of the House of Lords have thereby been increased? You may say that it increases the authority of the House because there are introduced Members of the first creation, like the noble Viscount himself, or myself, or other admirable people who lend fresh strength to the orations of your Lordships' House. But that is not an increase of power. It is the old Constitution, working, perhaps, with greater speed and rapidity.
The noble Viscount's second point was with regard to the guillotine in another place. He said that that resulted in a good deal of undigested legislation coming here to go through enpeptic processes in your Lordships' House. But the guillotine procedure is not a new thing; it has been going on during the greater part of the present century. Whenever that happens, there comes a great deal of legislative material that has not been considered in another place and this House is required to consider it for the first time and make Amendments. Included in those Amendments, of course, as is usually the case, are a great number
242
of Amendments which are acceptable to the Government, because every Government try to improve a Bill as it goes through; and if they cannot get their own Amendments accepted in another place, because they are there guillotined, representatives of the Government move them in this House. But that is not trying to control the other place or to enlarge the powers of your Lordships' House as against the other place. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has just said, with respect to all the Amendments on the Transport Bill, they have been accepted by the other House and they were carried here mainly, or at least in great part, at the desire of the other House. Therefore, it would be entirely a false impression, if that Bill were cited as an example of tee encroachment of this House upon the powers of the other.
The third point raised was that there is so much more delegated legislation now than there used to be. Well, that is so. But the procedure is the same as it always has been. There always have been the Affirmative Resolution and the Negative Resolution, and this House has always had the powers of which the noble Viscount is now complaining. There is nothing new in that. It has gone on for as long as delegated legislation itself has existed; and if there is more of that kind of legislation, all that can be said is that this House has more numerical opportunities of using its powers. We cannot say that the powers themselves have been in any degree increased.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and my old friend Lord Samuel for the flattery of the kind and thoughtful attention which they have given the few remarks I addressed to your Lordships. I am sorry about my mistake in the quotation. That is a dreadful thing. I can only give Dr. Johnson's excuse—sheer ignorance. But it does not matter much about the power of the Crown. What matters here is the power of the Executive; and that power "is increasing and ought to be diminished." That is exactly our objection. It is exercised through a docile Upper Chamber. The wording of the correct version of the quotation which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, gave me, is equally applicable.

243
With what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said about the way in which the Conservative Party use the powers of this House, I entirely agree. There are here a large number of old Parliamentary hands. Because there are 835 Peers, that does not mean that this House is stronger than when there were 721 Peers, but it means what in employing circles is called a large reserve of labour. Therefore, these noble Lords are always available for the Conservative Party when required. It may be that something happens in the minds of the electors and they may be called upon. But, of course, these powers have been exercised with a sense of fairness and a sense of consideration for all of us, which makes them all the more dangerous. The reasonable autocrat is a much more dangerous man than the unreasonable autocrat, and the Bench Opposite is an autocracy so far as all that matters is concerned. I think that fact, whether the Front Bench sits there or here, is not open to challenge.
Finally, a word about the guillotine Resolution. There is a great change here which has resulted in there being thrown on this House responsibilities which we did not have before. I would draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Samuel to this fact. Previously, in another place they frequently said, "We do not want these Amendments; reject them globally"—that was the word used by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman about the Amendments to the Education Act: I remember cheering it violently on the Back Bench. To say, "Reject the Amendments globally" is one thing, but to say, "Accept them without debate" is a totally different thing. I must say that I smiled at the astuteness of the Conservative Party in persuading this House to sit three nights until twelve o'clock while the Conservative Party composed their differences on the Transport Bill and transformed their position, and filled their unmanned Committees in another place. It was the finest example of a successful political manœuvre that I have ever known. As Mr. Speaker said in another place, the House has never been stopped from considering any legislation which originated here, including some dealing with finance, and compelled to take it at one gulp. They did not complain. That is their affair. We
244
should not venture to criticise them. But they are the Government. Do you control the House of Commons?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I do not control the House of Commons. I do not even control this House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Viscount is too modest. The Government control the House of Commons, and my complaint is that the Government have found a new way by which the labours of this House, and the talent, ability and sense of public spirit of this House, are being turned to such good purpose that, where the electors will not allow them to have enough men to man their Committees in another place, the work is to be done by this House. I am grateful for the kindness, the consideration, the courtesy and the vast know ledge I have evoked in this debate, and with your Lordships' permission, I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with drawn.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY ACT AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) ACT EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL MILFORD DOCKS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY (CREMATORIUM) BILL [H.L.] NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] BELPER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL TEES CONSERVANCY SUPERAN NUATION SCHEME BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTES informed the House that the opposition to
246
the Bill was withdrawn: the orders made on February 10 and March 3 discharged, and Bill committed.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past four o'clock.