Lords Sitting of 10 November 1953

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

  FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  2.36 p.m.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Foods and Drugs Act, 1938, and the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, the Minister of State for Scottish Affairs, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend and consolidate certain enactments in Scotland relating to food, drugs, slaughterhouses and knackers' yards, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [H.L.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the sale of intoxicating liquor in seamen's canteens and to revoke Regulation 60AA of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939; and
  194
  for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS (CROWN USE) BILL [H.L.]
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision as to the use for the services of the Crown of patented inventions and registered designs; to make permanent provision for the use for the purpose aforesaid of other inventions and designs, and for the disclosure of industrial information required by the Crown for defence purposes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  ROAD CONGESTION
  2.40 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that over 320,000 motor vehicles were registered last year for the first time; whether they are aware that at least as many more are likely to be registered for the first time this year. Can they state what plans the Government have in contemplation to deal with the very serious road situation which is already arising in certain areas, owing to traffic congestion, and which is certain to be largely accentuated if this rate of increase continues, with its ultimate effect upon the motor car industry.]
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the increase in new registrations of motor vehicles. They have various plans designed to relieve congestion by means of major road improvements, including by-passes, widening of existing

  195
  roads and improvement of intersections, which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation hopes to put into operation, or, where the initiative rests with local authorities, to approve and assist from the Road Fund as rapidly as financial conditions permit.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether I am to understand from the noble Earl's Answer, that the situation is precisely the same as it was on April 1 of this year when he gave me very much the same sort of Answer? All the time the problem is getting worse. Do Her Majesty's Government not realise that this matter has its own effect on the cost of living and also on the accident rate? Cannot the noble Earl give us some idea as to when Her Majesty's Government will really tackle the question in the way it must be tackled eventually?
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government are perfectly well aware of these facts. I would say, if the noble Earl would like a little further comment on this matter, that at the moment there is an accumulated backlog of road plans amounting to many millions of pounds which have been held up by the severe restrictions on capital investment and Government expenditure which have been maintained in recent years. Among these plans are many proposals which would do much to relieve congestion by the provision of by-passes and, as I said, the widening of existing roads and improvement of intersections. Some useful improvements have already been effected by installing new and improved traffic light signals at intersections. I should like to remind the noble Earl that in this approach to the heart of the matter he is asking me to give him a detailed answer about the whole complex problem of the network of roads in this country, and this is scarcely an appropriate moment for me to attempt to do so. I assure the noble Earl once again, however, that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of these matters and are doing their best to cope with them within the limits of their means.
  EARL JOWITT: Could a list be published showing the major projects now in contemplation? I realise the financial
  196
  difficulties. Naturally, these plans can be carried out only as and when finance permits; but it would be of interest to some of us to know what are the major projects now in contemplation.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I shall be pleased to ask my right honourable friend to satisfy the noble and learned Earl on that point.
  LORD MATHERS: Will the noble Earl make sure that provision for a Forth Road Bridge is included in those major items?
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: We always have great sympathy with Scotland.
  EARL HOWE: May I remind the noble Earl that on April 1, 1953, he told me that the County of London Plan, 1943, contained a statement that in New York the estimated cost of delays to traffic total £70 million a year, and that if a similar estimate for London were made it would probably be found to be of the same order?
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I do not recall that particular remark, but I am certain that if I made it, it was justified in every possible way. I shall be pleased to look into the matter again and attempt to satisfy the noble Earl; but I am afraid I do not remember that particular remark.
  EARL HOWE: It will be found in Hansard, Vol. 181, col. 452.
  LORD FARINGDON: Will Her Majesty's Government consider whether, in fact, without any expenditure of capital money it would not be possible considerably to relieve congestion, particularly in our cities, by an improved traffic code more strictly enforced?
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I think that that matter has already been considered.
  A NOBLE LORD: On behalf of the pedestrians?
  LORD FARINGDON: If the noble Earl drives very much in London, he will know how excessively ill-controlled is our traffic.
  THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I have no doubt of that

  THE SUDAN CIVIL SERVICE
  2.43 p.m.
  LORD KILLEARN: 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 Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that fair and adequate terms of compensation will be accorded to the British officials in the Sudan Civil Service when the Lime comes for them to leave the country; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give an assurance at the present stage that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom to see that this is done.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that it will not be possible for fair and adequate arrangements to be made for the compensation of British officials in the Sudan Civil Service who are affected by future constitutional changes. As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, it will, of course, be the Sudanese Government existing at the time which will be responsible for making the arrangements, but I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will be concerned to see that fair treatment is given to these officials.
  LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer.

  DISAPPEARANCE OF POLISH PRIEST
  2.44 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 Her Majesty's Government whether any statement can now be made on the disappearance of Father Borynski in Bradford.]
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is informed by the Chief Constable of Bradford that the extensive inquiries which have been made since Father Borynski disappeared on July 13, 1953, have so far been unsuccessful in tracing him, but
  198
  that nothing has been discovered to justify any suggestion that Father Borynski was the victim of foul play.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. The episode is certainly a disquieting one, but I fully recognise that in present circumstances he cannot add to his reply.

  DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
  2.45 p.m.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
  Moved, That the Viscount Mersey, the Lord Teynham, the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Blackford, the Lord O'Hagan, the Lord Terrington, the Lord Crook, the Lord Chorley, the Lord Kershaw, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, the Lord Rea and the Lord Milner of Leeds, be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the live Lords to form a Select Committee the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Reading.

  M. Willingdon.

  E. Fortescue.

  E. Jowitt.

  V. Samuel.

  V. Swinton.

  V. Hall.

  L. Carrington.

  L. Hare (E. Listowel.)

  L. Rea.

  L. Nathan.

  L. Shepherd.

  L. Ogmore.

  —(Lord Terrington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
  LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Willingdon.

  E. Fortescue.

  E. Jowitt.

  V. Samuel.

  L. Teynham.

  L. Carrington.

  L. Hare. (E. Listowel.)

  L. Merthyr.

  L. Cozens-Hardy.

  L. Faringdon.

  L. Clwyd.

  L. Milne.

  L. Tweedsmuir.

  L. Rea.

  L. Ammon.

  L. Schuster.

  L. Shepherd.

  L. Milner of Leeds.

  —(Lord Terrington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That all Petitions relating to the compliance with the Standing Orders on Private Bills which shall be presented during the present Session be referred to the Committee, unless otherwise ordered.

  SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
  LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the next Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

  D. Norfolk.

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Willingdon.

  E. Fortescue.

  E. Iveagh.

  V. Mersey.

  V. Samuel.

  L. Teynham.

  200

  L. Carrington.

  L. Denman.

  L. Hare. (E. Listowel.)

  L. O'Hagan.

  L. Merthyr.

  L. Cozens-Hardy.

  L. Faringdon.

  L. Blackford.

  L. Rea.

  L. Belstead.

  L. Ammon.

  L. Schuster.

  L. Shepherd.

  L. Kershaw.

  L. Champion.

  L. Milner of Leeds.

  —(Lord Terrington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
  LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move this Motion.
  Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

  D. Norfolk.

  D. Wellington.

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Cholmondeley.

  M. Willingdon.

  E. Scarbrough.

  E. Selkirk.

  E. Dartmouth.

  E. Stanhope.

  E. Ilchester.

  E. De La Warr.

  E. Clarendon.

  E. Fortescue.

  E. Munster.

  E. Iveagh.

  E. Bessborough.

  E. Halifax.

  E. Jowitt.

  V. Allendale.

  V. Mersey.

  V. Wimborne.

  V. Samuel.

  V. Swinton.

  V. Simon.

  V. Hall.

  L. Teynham.

  L. Saltoun.

  L. Carrington.

  201

  L. Wigan. (E. Crawford.)

  L. Denman.

  L. Hatherton.

  L. Hare. (E. Listowel.)

  L. O'Hagan.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Merthyr.

  L. Amulree.

  L. Bingham. (E. Lucan.)

  L. Mancroft.

  L. Rea.

  L. Belstead.

  L. Nathan.

  L. Ammon.

  L. Schuster.

  L. Pethick-Lawrence.

  L. Pakenham.

  L. Henderson.

  L. Morrison.

  L. Chorley.

  L. Lucas of Chilworth.

  L. Shepherd.

  L. Burden.

  —(Lord Terrington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

  PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
  LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move this Motion standing in his name.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

  M. Salisbury.

  E. Fortescue.

  E. Jowitt.

  V. Samuel.

  V. Swinton.

  V. Simon.

  V. Stansgate.

  L. Schuster.

  L. Shepherd.

  L. Rea.

  L. Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.

  L. Milner of Leeds.

  —(Lord Terrington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  2.48 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I would remind your Lordships that it is referred to the Committee on Consolidation Bills, a Joint Committee of both Houses, by authority of an Order of this House made last week, on November 4, in terms similar to those which are passed at the beginning of every Session. I will remind your Lordships of the terms of the Resolution which your Lordships passed:
  "That it is desirable that in the present Session all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
  Accordingly, if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will, as a matter of course, under that Order of your Lordships' House, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, where, of course, it will be examined in the same way as a Consolidation Bill is examined. I think I need add nothing more. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House certainly support the Second Reading of this Bill. It was, I think, in March, 1950, that I moved the last corresponding Bill. As a result of the passing of that Bill the Statutes, which used to be contained in some 45,000 pages, were reduced to some 28,000 pages, and our Statutes down to the end of 1948 are published in that edition. I am glad to see that the Lord Chancellor is going on with the good work, because it is a work that has constantly to be taken in hand. I have no doubt that as a result of this new Statute Law Revision Bill we shall be able further to cut down our 28,000 pages, though, be it remembered, there is at the present time a terrific output of legislation. Even this very day, four of the

  203
  noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have risen to introduce new Bills. With this output of legislation, we must take all steps we can to clear the dead wood.
  I have read through this Schedule. I do not know whether I may make just one observation about it—I pick out one subject matter which I have noticed. If your Lordships are interested and will turn to page 17, you will find there mentioned the first of the Tithe Acts, the Tithe Act, 1836, and you will see the extent of repeal there proposed—section 3, section 10, sections 13 to 16, and so on. At the bottom of the page you will see another Tithe Act which is repealed in toto. There follow thereafter (I need not trouble your Lordships with them; they run from page 18 on to pages 19, 21, 27, 40, 46, 55 and 62) other Tithe Acts. The net result is that thirteen Tithe Acts are dealt with in this Schedule. Only one of them is being repealed and therefore disappears altogether; all the others are being merely altered or modified—this, that or the other section drops out.
  I mention that fact because I most humbly suggest that the Lord Chancellor should perhaps consider, at some time or other, whether it does not indicate that this matter of tithes is one which might usefully form the subject of a Consolidation Statute. It does not seem to me satisfactory that in all these cases we are altering to some small extent these Tithe Acts, instead of dealing with them as a whole. I should like there to be consideration of the question of whether or not we could repeal all these Acts—get rid of them altogether and, in their place, substitute some new and modern Act which contains within itself all that remains of these old Acts. From the point of view of reference, that would be far more convenient for the practitioner dealing with the matter. For the rest, I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on having been able to introduce this Bill to us. As he rightly says, it will go before a Joint Consolidation Committee who have all the skilled advice to go into it most carefully. It certainly receives our good wishes, and will, I am sure, receive the good wishes of the whole House.
  2.53 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged for what the noble and learned Earl has said. I will
  204
  only add, in deference to what he has said, that it would seem that the consolidation of the Tithe Acts should stand fairly high in the rank. Unfortunately, as the noble and learned Earl knows as well as I do, the rank is rather a long one, and there are a good many competitors for prior places. But his suggestion will certainly be looked at by the learned Parliamentary draftsman who is in charge of that branch of our business.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE
  2.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that decisions are taken by C.O.C.O.M. (Consultative Group Co-operation Committee) sitting in Paris, which have important effects on British trade and commercial activities, they will state the composition of C.O.C.O.M.; the authority under which it was set up and acts, and what report was made to Parliament when it was constituted; the nature of its functions; to whom it submits its reports; and whether its decisions require Parliamentary sanction in any countries, and, if so, in which.]
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Viscount realises that if he wants to amplify his Question in any way, he must do it now; he cannot do it at the end.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am grateful to the noble Marquess. I had realised that, but I do not wish to amplify it to-day.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Viscount's Question is a fairly compendious and comprehensive one, but perhaps I can answer it within narrow limits. There is, I think, nothing either sinister or unconstitutional in the particular body to which he refers. The Consultative Group, of which the Coordinating (not "Co-operating") Committee is a component, is in itself a quite

  205
  informal body, and it consists of representatives of the Governments of the United States, Canada, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Denmark, Portugal, Western Germany, Norway, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. It was set up some years ago, after discussion with the various Governments concerned, discussion in which we took a leading part. Its purpose is quite plain and, indeed, obvious and perfectly above board; namely, to co-ordinate and to unify such security controls on the export of strategic commodities to certain countries as are necessary to safeguard the interests and resources of the particular countries.
  The Committee submits its reports to the Governments which are members of it. It is not a body which takes any formal decision, but it is rather an assemblage of representatives of the different countries who consult together with a view to harmonising and co-ordinating the security export controls. It has no executive authority; it merely makes recommendations, through each member to his particular Government, as to what the Committee considers to be right and necessary. In particular its function includes the listing and definition of the items which are subject to control, because the whole purpose of the Consultative Group is, so far as possible, to remove any discrepancies in the selection and treatment by the various countries concerned of items falling within the list, or the possible list, of strategic commodities. It is for each country to reach its own decisions in particular cases, but I can say that the lists and the definitions of items controlled by members of the Group are now, in the great majority of cases, identical. There are, of course, exceptions, such as the complete United States embargo on trade with China; but substantially the countries are, over the very wide field of goods concerned, now in agreement as regards principle and as regards practice. My Lords, I hope that that reply will meet the noble Viscount's inquiry for the moment.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would the noble Marquess answer the last part of my Question—namely, whether the Committee's decisions require Parliamentary sanction in any countries, and, if so, in which?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: No, my Lords, they require no Parliamentary sanction, so far as I know, in any country. It is a perfectly informal body which is set up for fie purpose of advising the various Governments. It reports to the Ministers in charge of the Departments concerned and the decision is theirs.
  EARL JOWITT: Are its reports published?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: No, I think not. As I say, it is a body which is convenient for joint discussion, and reports are made to the various Government Departments concerned.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Marquess is mindful of the disquiet that is felt in commercial circles in this country at the work of this Committee. He appears to be dismissing it very lightly, whereas the commercial people of this country regard it as having very nearly executive power. I understood the noble Marquess to say that it had not executive power, but the effect is nearly that. I wonder whether the noble Marquess knows that members of our commercial mission which went cut to the Far East in the early part of this year actually saw Belgian cable being laid in the streets of Pekin, whereas cable from this country is on the embargoed list.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said illustrates one of the dangers of plunging into this subject without careful investigation. The Committee is not an executive body. As I have already said, it merely makes recommendations to the Departments concerned. The noble Lord instanced Belgian cable and British cable, just as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, talked the other day about theodolites. There are often various general types of articles—or, indeed, specific types—certain kinds of which are of a strategic character and certain kinds of which are not; and one of the purposes of this Committee is to decide into which of these two categories they fall. Unless it were certain that both these types of cable fell into the same category, the criticism which the noble Lord made would not be applicable.
  LORD KERSHAW: Of course not—I appreciate that. But the men who saw these cables are manufacturers of similar cables in this country, who have applied, I understand, for licences to export that particular kind of cable. If a certain kind of cable is a strategic article in Britain, it clearly ought to be so also in Belgium. When the noble Marquess gave the list of countries associated with C.O.C.O.M., I did not hear whether Belgium was among them. If she is, then it is all the more strange that that country can export electric cable which we are prohibited from exporting. And that, I may say, is not the only class of goods that falls into that kind of discriminatory category.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: We are now, I think, getting into exactly the same difficulty that we got into when the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, was speaking the other day, in which instances are proffered by noble Lords "out of the blue," without any definite particulars,
  208
  which makes it a matter of extreme difficulty to deal with them. All I can say is that, as I have pointed out, harmony on general principles over the greater part of the field has now been attained, and discussions between the various countries continue over that relatively small area on which harmony has not yet been achieved. I trust the end will be that all the countries concerned will find themselves in complete agreement over the entire field.
  LORD KERSHAW: The noble Marquess did not say whether or not Belgium was in C.O.C.O.M.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am sorry, but I did mention it in the course of my original reply to the noble Viscount's Question. I said that Belgium was in C.O.C.O.M. Belgium was one of the countries the names of which I read out.
  House adjourned at three minutes past three o'clock