Lords Sitting of 4 March 1954

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Geddes—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CIVIL DEFENCE (GAS UNDERTAKERS) REGULATIONS, 1954
4.6 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this draft Order, for which I have to ask for an Affirmative Resolution, has a very simple object: it is to enable the gas industry to receive grants to help pay for certain steps to be taken against dislocation by enemy action. It also has a very complicated legislative parentage, and this I will deal with first. In 1939 we passed a Civil Defence Act, and this enabled the Minister to call for reports from and to give grants to public utilities for civil defence work. In 1945 we passed an Act suspending that Act. In 1948 the shadow was once more upon us, and we passed the Civil Defence Act, 1948. This Act of 1948 allowed the Minister to revive any provisions of the 1939 Act by regulation and amend them to fit in with modern conditions. In the regulations before us, the Minister revives powers given under Part V of the Act of 1939 to call for reports from gas boards and to give them instructions to ensure their due functioning in an emergency.
So much for the legislative origin. What of the objects? They are, briefly, to subsidise the carrying out of certain precautionary work falling into two broad categories: first, the installation of valves for the isolation of gas mains; and secondly, the purchase for stockpile of various engineering stores, such as pumps and the like. The financial arrangements are that the Minister may make grants up to 52¾ per cent. of the cost. In the 1939 Act, the grant was 50 per cent., and this rather peculiar new figure springs from a fairly simple calculation. If there were no grant and the gas boards spent money on these thing;, they would obtain relief ultimately by
150
annual instalments as a depreciation allowance against their profits; and over the period of life of the asset the gas board would avoid being taxed on an amount of money equal to the cost of the asset. When the rate of grant was under discussion with the Treasury, the income tax rate plus the profits tax rate on undistributed profits represented. when combined, a rate of 52¾ per cent.—hence this rather peculiar figure. It seemed better, in principle, to make a once-for-all grant with the condition that future depreciation allowances could not be claimed, rather than let the industry finance its own work and get some reimbursement over the years for depreciation.
Having regard to the 50 per cent. grant in 1939, it would have been impossible to secure the co-operation of the industry in any other way; so one can see how the formula for the grant was based on the rate of taxation at the date of the discussions. Taxation is a little lower now, but we do not intend to alter the rate of grant through, of course, we cannot bind ourselves into the ultimate future. I must emphasise here that the balance of 47¼ per cent, falls on the ordinary surplus of the industry. Work has been proceeding in anticipation of reimbursement, and for that reason we are anxious to get these regulations approved before the end of this financial year. The regulations have been considered by the Special Orders Committee. who found that there was nothing exceptional in them, and I ask your Lordships to pass the Affirmative Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Gas Undertakers) Regulations, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 24th of February last, be approved.—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I think it is quite clear that these regulations are necessary, but I suggest that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, ought to have admitted that these regulations and those we shall discuss afterwards have been brought in very largely as a result of a Report of the Select Committee on Estimates in another place, which expressed itself as being very perturbed by the neglect of the appropriate Departments to bring in regulations ensuring appropriate civil

151
defence precautions. As I understand it, the Civil Defence Act, 1948, authorised various Government Departments to bring in regulations. That was five years ago, and there has been neglect or delay in bringing in the regulations until this present time. I think Lord Hawke might have made it clear that the Government Departments concerned have had to be encouraged or, if I may use a vulgarism, "gingered up" to do what they should have done a long time ago. I think both the last Government and the present Government are responsible, but it is a matter for comment that these steps have not been taken previously.
The particular Order before your Lordships is one which provides for the Minister of Fuel and Power to:
" serve a notice in writing … requiring … a report …"
stating what measures had been taken by gas undertakings to:
" secure the due functioning of their undertaking in the event of hostile attack,"
and, secondly, empowers the Minister of Fuel and Power to direct a gas undertaking:
" to take such measures as may be so specified to secure the due functioning of their undertaking in the event of hostile attack."
I should have thought that the regulation might have been drawn in the reverse form; that is to say, that, first, the undertaking might have been directed to take certain measures, and secondly, to report as to what action had been taken on that direction. But, presumably for some reason, the regulation is drawn in the form now before your Lordships.
I notice that there are penalties apparently upon a board if the board within a reasonable period does not comply with the notice requiring it to make a report stating what measures have been taken. It is rather a curious position that the court should be enabled to impose a penalty upon public undertakings of this kind. I suppose it is only another way of saying that the taxpayer, in the last resort at any rate, is compelled to pay any penalty which may be imposed. Nothing is said about any penalty upon the officers of the appropriate undertaking. I recollect a case in my own part of Yorkshire whereby, under another provision. officers of a board (in that case
152
it was the electricity board) were apparently made responsible for a breach of the regulations. It was provided that certain expenditure should not be incurred without the authority of the appropriate Department. I do not recollect that any penalty was imposed upon the authority in that case, but a very severe penalty, to which some of us took great exception, was imposed upon the officer concerned, the manager of the undertaking, who, if I remember rightly, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. I am not suggesting for a moment that these regulations should contain a provision of that sort, but it is a matter of comment that in one regulation, apparently, penalties can be imposed upon the officers of these public undertakings which may have severe results so far as the individual is concerned. In this particular regulation, however, the penalty is apparently to be imposed upon the undertaking itself, presumably by way of a fine or something of that sort.
Quite clearly, these regulations are necessary in respect of both gas undertakings and the various other bodies which are to be dealt with this afternoon. We can only express satisfaction that the Government, at long last, are taking some steps to ensure the due functioning of the undertakings in the event of hostile attack. One may hope that the fact that they have done so may help towards the provision of whatever is necessary to enable that position to be achieved. It is clear why the gas undertakings have not taken these steps hitherto. The reason is that the Government Departments concerned have not made any provision for reimbursement. Now that the provision for reimbursement is made, it is up to the gas undertakings to take the necessary steps. One can only hope that they will take them quickly and that our various public undertakings may be put in a position to ensure their due functioning in the case of attack. My noble friends and I, of course, raise no objection to the regulations. We would only comment that it is regrettable that these steps have not been taken before to-day.
4.17 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords. during the eight years that I have been a Member of this House, one thing I have noticed is the meticulous care with which
this House endeavours to protect the public by seeing that, in this case, the Queen's regulations or statutory regulations are observed, not only in the spirit but in the letter. I rise not to make any Party capital of this point, except to remark that, speaking from the Benches of the second largest Party in this House, I feel that the Liberal Benches should be crowded, because the Liberals make numberless speeches in the country to the effect that they are the true custodians of the liberties of the people. I join forces with the Party opposite in that we endeavour to do our humble best, notwithstanding the Liberals, to see that these regulations are examined meticulously in Committee.
My noble friend who has just spoken did not tell us where the money was coming from, but some of us can think hack to the time in 1948 when the Act was passed. We had rather sore hearts but not sore heads;. we should have had sore heads if we had taken it. in the proper spirit, because there were millions of pounds taken into the national "kitty." My own gas authority, and also, I have no doubt, that of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, had rather a goodly sum which, with good Yorkshire thrift, they had put away, and this went in order to subsidise the people of the South who indulge in "squandermania" more than we do up North. But my real point is not to talk about "squandermania"; it is to congratulate even the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on coming to the stool of repentance and frankly admitting that he has been remiss all the time he has been a Lord in Waiting. Now, we hope that other Orders will receive not only his scrutiny but also that of the collection of junior Ministers, of whom I am so proud, who try to carry out their duties effectually.
4.20 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I rise not to express any opposition to this Motion but to suggest that we should have a different procedure with regard to considering these Civil Defence Motions which are on the Order Paper. In case of war, civil defence is the fourth arm of the Services—an important arm indeed, and in a future war it will be even more important than it has ever been before. I think that we ought to have something like a Second Reading debate on the question of civil defence. It is
154
a very complicated matter. I was deeply immersed in it before and at the beginning of the last war, when I was one of the instructors in London and the areas around London, and I feel that a great many people do not pay sufficient attention to civil defence and its great importance. In the future there will be a greater divorce between civil defence and the fighting services, and I suggest to the. noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that the Government should give serious consideration to providing an opportunity for a Second Reading debate on the importance and significance of civil defence.
4.21 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, by leave of the House I should like to reply to the points that have been raised. First of all, if the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, wishes to put down a Motion on the wider aspects of civil defence, I feel certain that it will receive a welcome from every part of the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, for the kind words he said about me. I did not wish to cause the Liberal Party any embarrassment by calling attention to their absence as he did. I feel certain that they must all be engaged on some important function at this moment. I agree with the noble Lord that one of the functions of this House is to scrutinise all aspects of legislation, and that we endeavour to do our duty in that respect. I will leave to the end of my remarks the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, regarding delay, as it is the longest point In connection with the penalties, I think that the noble Lord has overlooked a point. This Order revives Section 78 of the 1939 Act. which makes directors responsible. The purport of that section is that, where a director of an undertaking can be proved to have had knowledge of the fact that an offence was committed, then it can be brought home to him personally. With regard to the point about delay, I do not think the noble Lord is correct in saying that the production of these Orders is the result of the Report of the Select Committee. I should prefer to describe as a coincidence. Undoubtedly, the various activities that were going on before these Orders could be laid had been going on for some time, and they were bound to come to the House in due fruition. I would not accept the fact that the Report of the

155
Select Committee did anything really to hasten them.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, there have been considerable legal and financial difficulties behind the placing of these regulations. Moreover, civil defence has not been of the top priority in our defence. I do not think the House would wish me to read it in full, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in replying to the Select Committee, has made these particular points: that the first priority was means to strike the enemy, and that civil defence was not of quite the same order of priority. He then goes on to admit, however, that there has been delay in settling the financial arrangements. I am glad to say that that has not been appreciably instrumental in causing delay to the works to be carried out, because until the financial year 1953–54, which is just closing, it has not been possible to get in the supplies which were needed. The orders could be placed, but the engineering plant has been extremely difficult to get. Moreover, the resources of industry were, in most cases, required in order to secure stores for the normal day-to-day functioning of the industry. All these public utilities had arrears of maintenance to make up, and the mere making up of those arrears of maintenance was in itself a contribution towards civil defence.
Nevertheless, a certain amount of work has been done. I mentioned that, in anticipation of sanction, some works have been done. The estimated grant for 1953–54 for the gas industry was one of £250,000, and in actual works this year approximately £300,000 is expected to be spent. Of course, 52¾ per cent. of that is grant, and the reason that the full amount has not been spent has been that as regards the stockpiling part the material has just not come forward. Now that there has been more time for the flow to start, we anticipate that during the next financial year orders will be fulfilled more quickly. My Lords, I hope I have answered the specific points raised by your Lordships and that you will give this Order an Affirmative Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (POLICE) REGULATIONS, 1954
4.28 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, there are two sets of Police regulations of which I am about to seek your Lordships' approval. The Scottish regulations are in purpose, as is not unusual, identical with the English regulations, though they are not identical in form, because of various differences between the Police Act, 1946 and the Police (Scotland) Act, 1946. I will therefore, in just a few remarks, deal simultaneously with both sets of regulations, although I will move the two sets of regulations individually. The object of these regulations is a simple one. They are made under Section 2 of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, and they replace earlier regulations—the Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, 1952—with one small but significant amendment. It is to that point that I wish to address my observations. The earlier regulations conferred on police authorities the function of training and equipping the regular police and special constables under their control for the purposes of civil defence. If your Lordships will look at the original regulations, however, you will see that the police were empowered only to provide such civil defence equipment as might be required for training purposes. The only specific difference between the new regulations and the old regulations is that the new regulations no longer limit the function to the provision of equipment required only for training.
Here I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, on this question of delay. My noble friend Lord Hawke has explained the general situation with regard to delay, but since the point has been made in regard to these regulations I should like to say that there is no question of delay, but only of natural evolution. In the first place the police needed to have training equipment in order to be trained. Now we are proposing to provide for an emergency. I will say a little more on that point later on. It is not a question of delay, it is a question of the normal evolution that takes place

157
in any such scheme. First comes training and then comes the actual equipment for battle.
These new regulations provide new that the police authorities can supply operational equipment for police forces for the purpose of civil defence. This is a function which, as noble Lords will be aware, is already possessed by civil defence and fire authorities, and the organisations representing police authorities have been consulted and they agree—as I think is quite natural—that police authorities should also possess it. As my honourable friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained in moving these regulations in another place—and I reiterate it to-day—it is now desirable to confer this function upon the police authorities, because civil defence plans have developed to a stage where it is desirable that they should have the power to provide operational equipment. The sort of equipment we have in mind is, for example, that which should be provided in advance to ensure that police communications are adequate for the operational control of a force in war conditions. I do not think there is anything else I need say since that is the main point. It means that the police can begin to equip themselves for the task that would fall upon them in the event of the arising of an emergency. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these regulations are necessary and that you will give them your approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Police) Regulations, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday. the 24th of February last. be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.
4.33 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, we on this side of the House agree that these regulations are necessary. Our complaint, notwithstanding what Lord Lloyd has said, is that there has been considerable and regrettable delay in bringing them into force. I cannot really accept the explanation given by Lord Hawke that materials and so forth were not available. I think the Select Committee made it clear that the real difficulty was that the Government had not tackled the question of reimbursing local authorities in respect of some proportion of the
158
expenditure which they incur. However, at long last some action has been taken. It is true that this particular regulation extends the functions which the police are expected to carry out. They are not restricted to the matter of training but have additional functions imposed upon them.
There. is one curious point. Paragraph 2 of the Order provides that:
"a police authority other than the police authority for the Metropolitan police district shall comply with any directions given from time to time by the Secretary of State."
One has always understood that, whilst the Metropolitan police authorities were under the direction of the Secretary of State, the various provincial police authorities were not. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, can tell us how far a regulation can alter that long-established principle. On many occasions I have heard the defence raised by the Home Secretary that he was not in any, way responsible for the action taken and that he was in no position to give directions to the police other than those included in the Metropolitan police district. This regulation lays down that police authorities other than the police authority for the Metropolitan police district shall comply with directions given from time to time by the Minister. I assume that there must be some authority for that. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us how this comes about, and by what authority a regulation can alter the relationship which normally exists between the Secretary of State and the provincial police. With those comments, and again regretting the undoubted delay which has taken place in bringing all these matters before Parliament, I say that we on this side of the House must, of course, necessarily support these regulations.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am sure that the Scottish Office will have been consulted about these regulations. and that they are moved with the approval of the Government as a whole. I rise to express assent to them, and to say that I am certain that the functions which are laid upon the police will be loyally and faithfully carried out. I would add that I hope and pray that they will never be required. to meet the sinister circumstances with which they are designed to deal.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I must return to the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, on the question that, so far as these particular regulations are concerned, there has been delay. The noble Lord bases the whole of his case about delay on the ground that no proper financial authority was available. But he really cannot say that in this case, because if he looks at the previous regulations he will see that there was such authority so far as these regulations are concerned.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Will the noble Lord tell us who was responsible for the delay which clearly has taken place since the Civil Defence Act, 1948, came into force?
LORD LLOYD: I am keeping myself in order and dealing with these particular regulations. On these regulations—and in this connection "my head is bloody but unbowed"—I have not in any way altered my opinion as the result of the noble Lord's arguments. As I have said, this has been a normal evolution. In the first place, we had the training and now we are getting operational equipment. That is a normal evolution in a military or para-military organisation.
The next point with which I should like to deal is the interesting constitustional point raised by the noble Lord about the control of police authorities by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Lord said—perfectly rightly; I am the last person to deny it because I used that particular argument as a defence the day before yesterday—that my right honourable friend cannot give orders to a police authority in the provinces; that he has no direct control over provincial police. That is true. Direct control of the police is exercised by the chief constables. I think the difference here is contained in the Civil Defence Act, 1948. If the noble Lord will look at Section 2 (2) (a) of that Act he will see that:
"as respects the exercise of any functions conferred upon them under this section, any local or police authority shall be bound to comply with any directions given them by the designated Minister."
I think it is clear that this is not a normal police function. This is an emergency function, and my right honourable friend may direct the police
160
authorities what their function may be. Of course, he would not give them day-to-day operational instructions, but he may certainly direct them as to their function. That is the situation. As I read it, these regulations are certainly in accordance with Section 2 (2) (a) of the Act. I think that covers the noble Lord's point. The Home Secretary does have power to direct the police authorities as regards their functions and generally to indicate what they are expected to do.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: With great respect to the noble Lord, may I point out, with regard to this matter of carrying out functions, that Paragraph 2 of these regulations says:
" In carrying out the functions conferred on them by these 'Regulations a police authority …shall comply with any directions given from time to time …".
Under this wording the Minister will have power to give what he considers to be an operational direction. Where is the authority for that?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, civil defence is not a normal police function, and I do not think the noble Viscount would expect that the necessary procedure here should be treated on all fours with normal functions of the police. This procedure is necessary to deal with the situation which arises in an emergency. If the noble Lord will look at the parent Act he will see that, though I agree the words here might imply that the Minister could give actual operational instructions, that is not the intention under the Act. Obviously, since my right honourable friend is responsible to Parliament for civil defence, he must have some power to give directions to the police and local authorities. I am sure that the noble Viscount will regard that as reasonable.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think the Government are doing anything wrong, but I want to get clarity on the matter. I agree with the noble Lord that in these matters he will have to rely a great deal on the parent Act. But when it comes to actual civil defence operations there are bound to be in the consideration of the authorities operations of the police in conjunction with the military, of the

161
use of mobile columns and ancillary operations arising out of that. I have no objection to the words being included in this Order but, if it is necessary to have such powers, it ought to be made clear at the same time what are to be military functions and what are not. Of course, if in a state of emergency we are going to put the whole of the operations under military command and control, that may be the proper answer: but so far we have not had a proper answer.
LORD LLOYD: I have referred to the original Act, and I will refer to it again. This was an Act of the noble Viscount's own Government and I presume that he will not run away from that. The easiest way to deal with this seems to be to read the whole of paragraph (a). Clause 2 (2) of the Civil. Defence Act, 1948, says:
"Regulations made under this Section …

(a) may require that, as respects the exercise of any functions conferred on them under this section, any local or police authority shall be bound to comply with any directions given to them by the designated Minister."

That is broad enough. The noble Viscount questions the authority for these regulations. I say that the wording of these regulations is amply covered by the provisions of the original Act. Further (and I think this is the point the noble Lord had in mind), this is clearly an administrative measure under the Act. I do not think my right honourable friend would wish, even in an emergency of this kind, to break down beyond what was absolutely essential the traditional relationship that has grown up between himself and the police authorities. Obviously, one cannot deal with this subject entirely on all fours with normal police procedure, but within that framework of the powers given here, I do not think my right honourable friend, or any other Home Secretary, would wish to go further in directing a police authority than was absolutely necessary. I am sure they would be ill-advised to do so, and I do not think they would.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (POLICE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1954
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, these regulations are on all fours with the previous set of regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Police) (Scotland) Regulations, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, February 24 last, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL. DEFENCE (TRANSPORT) REGULATIONS, 1954
4.45 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I now have to ask your Lordships for an Affirmative Resolution in favour of the Civil Defence (Transport) Regulations. They spring from the same complicated legislative background which I have already explained in the case of the gas regulations. As in the case of gas, the main objective is to enable the public utility services to function in the event of hostile attack. The services in question are canals, inland navigation, docks, harbours and railways. Your Lordships will notice that the rate of grant varies. For canals it is 52¾ per cent.; for clocks and harbours, 70 per cent. and 100 per cent.; and for railways, 100 per cent. In the Act of 1939, 50 per cent. was the standard rate, so the present rates are more generous.
The variations are not without reason. One can say that the attitude of successive Governments to the size of grant has been to pay regard, first, to the relative importance of the work required to be done, and secondly, to the extent to which it can be done without Government help. At the same time, it has been desirable to have regard to the ability to spread over the community using these services the balance not covered by grant. In the case of gas, I have just explained how a grant of 52¾ per cent. was arrived at. Docks and harbours are to receive 70 per cent. of the cost of works done to ensure what is called "due functioning." and they are getting 100 per cent. of the cost of works intended to provide what is termed "additional facilities." Such services may be required to boost the capacity of certain ports to enable ships to be handled there instead of at their more normal ports.

163
The difference between these two categories is important, and I should like to put on record the exact definition Which has been agreed. First of all, the term" due functioning "relates to measures taken to ensure that undertakings shall be able to continue functioning in the event of hostile attack, and covers such schemes as will safeguard the continued provision in war time of accommodation for shipping and facilities for handling traffic on the same scale as the port would normally be capable of dealing with in peace time. Amongst other measures, it includes the protection or, in exceptional cases, the duplication of vital machinery, the provision of spare lock gates, special measures to ensure the immediate repair of vital parts and arrangements for dimming dock lighting." Additional facilities "are defined as those projects designed to secure so far as practicable that an undertaking is capable of receiving, accommodating and handling vessels, persons, livestock and goods, which either in amount or in character would not be required to be provided for by the undertaking, apart from hostile attack or the danger thereof. Where necessary, such projects would include the provision of services and of road, rail and other facilities for dealing with this traffic.
Why the difference in the rates of grant'? First of all, we must remember that the rate in the last war was 50 per cent. It has been agreed that canals should get what one might describe as the standard rate—namely, 52¾ per cent. In practice, we do not visualise having to call upon canals to do very much. But why are docks and harbours to receive 70 per cent. and 100 per cent.? I think one can easily explain the 100 per cent. rate. The reason is that it would be unreasonable to expect them to bear any part of the cost of providing the additional facilities not required for their normal functioning. As regards the 70 per cent. grant for normal functioning, it is by no means easy for docks to obtain extra revenue owing to the competition between them, and, moreover, it would have been impossible to obtain the agreement of the authorities representing docks and harbours to any rate less than 70 per cent. In fact, 70 per cent. was the best rate on which it was possible to agree.
164
When it comes to railways, a still different consideration arises—that is, that during the last war the grant rate was 100 per cent. Also, of all utilities, the railways find it most difficult to pass on their expenditure to the general public. Therefore in practice it was impossible to deny the railways the 100 per cent. rate they received during the war. I should say a word or two as to the type of works envisaged in ports and harbours. It is such things as spare lock gates, moorings, cables and so on. In railways, it is largely equipment which will provide control should communications be shattered. I hope I have explained the main points of these regulations. I may say that they have been considered by the Special Orders Committee, which had no particular comment to make upon them, and I would ask your Lordships to pass an Affirmative Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Transport) Regulations, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 24th of February last, be approved.—(Lord Hawke.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, should come forward in so unblushing a fashion, with no apology for the gross delay which has taken place in bringing forward these regulations. The present Government have been in office for some two and a half years. In the case of the railways, for example, plans were drawn up as long ago as 1950, and nothing was done until the Government were awakened by the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. I feel that some explanation and expression of regret is due from the noble Lord who has put forward these much-delayed and partial regulations at this late date. I do not know whether your Lordships are clear—I am bound to say that I am not—as to the distinction between these various rates of grant. Railways get 100 per cent.; docks and harbours in some instances, I gather, get only 70 per cent. It is not in the least clear where the distinction arises. Are these grants in the nature of capital expenditure? If so, presumably no question of income tax relief, or anything of that sort, would have any effect on the rate of grant by the Government. I understand that where the 52¾ per cent.

165
comes in it is based in some way on income tax being at the rate of 9s. 6d. in the pound. Apparently 10s, 6d. is 52¾ per cent.—if that be the proper calculation—of £l. But there is no clear explanation of why the Government should discriminate and complicate the situation by so many different rates of grant.
This regulation is an extremely wide one. One hopes that as a result the various transport undertakings may take the steps that are required to enable their due functioning. Here again, if your Lordships look at the regulations, you will see that Paragraph 1 says:
"It shall be the duty of all public utility undertakers carrying on a canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertaking "
after service on them of a notice
" to make…a report stating what measures they have taken "…
and secondly,
" to take within the time specified in the notice such measures as may be so specified."
I should have thought that the regulation should be put the other way round. In my view, it should be the province of the Minister of Transport to direct transport undertakings to do certain works, and that thereafter they may be asked to make a report as to what steps they have taken. It is a curious reversion to put it the other way round;to say that a report shall be called for first, and that thereafter the Minister of Transport may give directions as to what measures may be taken. However, quite clearly none of your Lordships can object to these delayed-action operations being taken. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. whether there are many other regulations of this type, relating to other authorities or other functions, to be brought forward, or whether these regulations complete all that is necessary. My recollection is that the Select Committee on Estimates took the view that little or nothing had been done throughout the whole gamut of these matters for which the Government are responsible. It will be interesting to know whether these regulations do all that is necessary, or whether we may expect, on some other date, another spate of them, in respect of which the delay may be one, two or three years, if the present Government remain in office.
4.56 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, my attention was drawn to this matter only
166
yesterday when I had some conversation with my noble friend about these regulations. I speak to voice doubts that are held by the Association of Dock and Harbour Authorities. I think the answer to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, is that a good many of these authorities have already done work in anticipation of possible hostilities, and it would be absurd for the Government to direct them to do what they have already done. I believe that a report would be called for. But my friends are a little troubled about one or two things, and particularly about the one which I propose to leave to the end. In the first place, there is provision for a grant of 70 per cent. towards works which can be ordered by the Minister: he is the sole judge of the situation. The port authorities concerned are not placed in a position to form a judgment on the matter; they simply have to carry out the work. They may be in considerable difficulty, and to a small port the expense imposed upon them, ever though it is only 30 per cent. of the total cost, may represent an excessive sum. It is in connection with the small ports, in particular, that I speak this afternoon. I submit that in many cases the 30 per cent. may be a rather onerous charge on a small and struggling port. especially if the port authority are called upon to provide a spare pair of dock gates, which may not be required for thirty or forty years, and are compelled to meet the charges themselves. However, that is a small point compared with the second one I wish to make.
The Association of Dock and Harbour Authorities in general take exception to the penalties, and they wish that some other method could be devised of ensuring that the orders of the,. Minister are properly carried out. I would make this point. A great many of these small ports have had their debts guaranteed by outside parties, who have nothing whatever to do with their running. I submit that that is not in conformity with propriety, and, in my opinion, it is not good morals for Parliament, by a Public General Act, to put the guarantors of small public undertakings like this, whose guarantees have been given in the interests of the public, to the risk of a severe loss such as the imposition of these penalties might create. I have been reflecting on this ever since the matter was brought to my attention, and I find myself in an awk-

167
ward position. I must either challenge an Affirmative Resolution this afternoon, or let the matter go. I shall await with great interest the answer of my noble friend. I should like to point out that it is not an answer to say that the penalty is imposed not on the undertaking but on the undertakers, because it would be impossible to impose heavy penalties upon a small congregation of fishermen who are managing their own port with their harbour master, who may not have at his disposal the materials to carry out the works which are ordered. Therefore, I come back to my original point, that it is not proper to impose penalties on public undertakings whose debts have been guaranteed by outside members of the public at a time when such penalties were entirely outside human conception and foresight.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, as one who was engaged in the transport industry for most of his working life, I should like to say that these regulations are of great interest to me. If the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, can answer the following points in regard to the different rates of contribution, I shall be glad to have the information. What will be the position of the British Transport Commission in relation to work done by the Commission in connection with any docks, harbours or, for that matter, canals they own? Will the Transport Commission receive the 100 per cent. grant, as mentioned in regard to the railway undertakings, or will they, in regard to the docks and harbours portion of the Transport Commission, receive the lower amounts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun?
May I ask for some information on another point? Those of us who were in the railway service and connected with civil defence during the last war will know the great part played by road transport. Road transport was very effective indeed in lending help to the railways—which were, of course, worked under the Railway Executive Committee—when the railways were put out of commission owing to enemy attack. I do not say this by way of criticism, but attempts are now being made to break up the road transport organisation of the British Transport Commission. That is now the law of the land, and those attempts are now being undertaken. As I understand it, however, quite a large portion of road
168
transport will be left in the hands of the British Transport Commission. The definition on page 3, as I read it, relates, so far as the Transport Commission is concerned, to the railway, canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour parts of their undertaking, as the case may be. It expressly excludes anything in connection with road transport, or road transport operated still by the British Transport Commission.
LORD HAWKE: From which regulation is the noble Lord reading?
LORD BURDEN: Regulation 6. Does that wording imply that no provision at all is to be made by the British Transport Commission in regard to any road undertakings still left in their hands; and if, in the public interest, they make some provision, is the cost, by that definition, excluded from Government grant? I am not raising those points by way of criticism at all, but only in order, if possible, to understand these proposed regulations better.
5.6 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, quite a number of points have been raised on these regulations. First of all, I will revert once again to the question of delay. I do not want to go over entirely the same ground as I covered in regard to the gas regulations. I admitted that there had been delay with regard to those regulations, but I said that the outcome of the delay had not been as serious as it might have been, because of the supply position. I would remind noble Lords that the Act of 1948 was passed in December, 1948, and it was not until mid-1951, I understand, that the rate of grant was agreed—and the rate of grant was the first step, before everything else. So if anybody has to appear in a white sheet, I think we share that white sheet on both sides of the House in regard to this matter of unreasonable delay, because it certainly cannot be pinned upon Her Majesty's present Government.
I can answer the further point about delay at the same time as I answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden. To illustrate the fact that the supply position has been extremely difficult, I may say that in 1953 to 1954 the railways set out to spend £1,200,000 and they have succeeded in spending only approximately £600,000. To my mind,

169
that is a proof that the railway suppliers of this country were fully occupied in carrying out the normal arrears of maintenance to the railways, and there was precious little manufacturing space available for this extra equipment. As I said before, the rehabilitation, the catching up of arrears on the railways—and there were great arrears—is one of the things which can be regarded as the best form of civil defence. I am sorry I did not answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, about the logic of the report coming before the direction. That struck me as being very logical You ask somebody what he is doing already, and if you do not approve you send him an order to do something different, and then proceed to ask for a report on the next stage. I think I am more logical than the noble Lord in this matter. As regards the question whether other regulations are to come forward, I may say that I am not aware of any, but I should not like to be bound by that answer. I should like to have notice of that question, if the noble Lord wants to ask it seriously.
I apologise to the House if I have not managed to explain these different rates quite clearly, and I shall have to start again. We regard 52¾. per cent. as the standard rate. The case of canals and gas I have mentioned, arid I will mention electricity shortly. Railways are the exception. Remember, all these things had 50 per cent. grants in the last war, and railways had 100 per cent. When we come to railways we cannot deny them the 100 per cent. they had before, especially in view of the difficulties the railways have in passing on any charges to the public. They have to go to rates tribunals and goodness knows what else before they can get any extra revenue. With regard to harbours, to some extent it was a matter of bargaining to reach a figure agreeable to both sides. I do not think it is unreasonable—although the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is suggesting that they are hard put to it—that they are not getting 100 per cent. We felt, however—I think it was the last Government, but I am not sure —that harbours had an easier chance of getting some recoupment from their customers than had, for instance, the railways. Therefore 70 per cent. was considered a more reasonable figure.
170
I will now deal with two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden. The Transport Commission, in so far as they are dock and harbour owners, will receive the rate appropriate to docks and harbours. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the fact that there is no provision for civil defence expenses in connection with their road activities. Well, my Lords, on that subject one can only ask: Where does civil defence start and where does it end? We have a certain limited amount of money and resources, and it has been decided. that it is best to devote them to the more vulnerable and vital matters. If we start doing civil defence work for every conceivable activity, the other activities of our Island would have to cease because of insufficient resources. I think road activities comes into that category.
LORD BURDEN: I did not raise the point of road companies as such. I felt that they were excluded, again by definition. I would not say that the roads were covered by private enterprise and I would not bring them within the description of "public utilities," to which these regulations refer. I was asking only what would be the position about claims by the British Transport Commission in respect of any cost incurred with regard to their road undertakings.
LORD HAWKE: They would have to stand it out of their own pockets, as private owners of road traffic would have to do—subject to any arrangement they could make with the Inland Revenue as regards depreciation allowances and so on.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, undoubtedly there may be hard cases among the small 'harbour owners, but the arrangements that have been made have been agreed with the representatives of all harbours. I am able to give the noble Lord this assurance, however, because he was kind enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this question. My right honourable friend does not think that there is any great likelihood of the more penurious undertakings being asked to undertake their due functioning measures. In any event, if these are additional facilities they will get 100 per cent. grant. Moreover, the Department have assured the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association that in case of extreme need loans

171
might be made from Exchequer funds to assist authorities to meet their share of the expenditure. I think that that assurance should go a long way towards calming the troubled breast of my noble friend. At any rate, I hope it will do so.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he undertake to consider my point about guaranteed harbours, because I think there is something fundamental there? I do not wish to carry on opposition unreasonably but I should like to know that that point is fully considered by the Department concerned.
LORD HAWKE: Anything that the noble Lord puts forward will always have careful consideration by my right honourable friend. but of course it cannot have his consideration in time to alter any regulations before this House now—that is, if your Lordships wish to pass them.
The noble Lord goes on to this question of penalty—and penalties I admit are always prickly ground. I thought that the noble Lord. Lord Milner of Leeds. wanted to be certain that the penalties were sufficient, whereas my noble friend Lord Saltoun rather inclined in the opposite direction. I may say here that the penalties under this order were rather less than those of the Act of 1939. Under the Act of 1939 the penalties which fell on the undertaking were a fine of £100 plus £50 a day for a continuing offence, whereas under these regulations the undertaking gets off with £100, plus £10 a day for a continuing offence. However, I do not think we need visualise that these patriotic and important bodies are likely to disobey the Minister and have to be dragged up in court and fined. The fact that there are penalties at all, and that they are contained in the Statutes, should be sufficient. I hope that that explanation will meet my noble friend. It would be a pity if he were to attempt to vote against this Resolution because of a not very important point. I hope that I have met all the other points raised by noble Lords and I would ask your Lordships now to pass the Affirmative Resolution.
5.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the permission of the House—for I know
172
that we have been having a debate in full session of the House. but this debate on Statutory Orders is rather like a Committee discussion—I should like to say a few words. On this question of delay, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has done his best to defend the Government. and I congratulate him on his performance this afternoon. On the other hand, what he says with regard to the years 1948 to 1951 can hardly be answered unless one takes account of political conditions, in the international sense, in connection with this matter. into which I would not dare go in detail here, although I will gladly tell him privately. What the Government have to meet is this. The Report of the Select Committee which has been referred to by Lord Milner of Leeds. was a unanimous Report of all Parties, and in the main its criticisms were confined to administrative difficulties over the past two and a half years. That is the real point which we on this side think has not been satisfactorily answered, and on a further occasion we may have to discuss this matter again. No doubt, if I put that comment on record now, the Government will attempt to give a more detailed explanation of the situation on the later occasion to which I have referred.
The point raised by Lord Saltoun, about small harbours, is a matter of considerable importance and one in which I have always taken the greatest possible interest. No one, in any part of the House, would seek to withhold from the people who run our small docks and harbours their thanks for the wonderful work done for us in the last war, especially for the Royal Navy, as well as for the Merchant Service. It is almost incomprehensible to me, looking back, to see what was accomplished in little ports, places with a population of, perhaps, 1,000. 1,500 or 2,000. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is therefore quite right in his reference to the lack of adequate resources behind such localities to enable them to deal with any considerable expenditure.
I was going to say to Lord Saltoun, and I am glad Lord Hawke has referred to it, that of course it is essential in time of war, as I found every week during the last war, to be continuously arranging for additional facilities in the smaller ports and harbours. Much of the cost of that work, incidentally, in time of

173
actual emergency and crisis, is met concurrently out of Service Estimates. Therefore the problem does come back to what may arise under the precautionary steps taken by any Government in peace time to deal with the situation. The only thing that worries me at all in these cases is whether any of these requirements might be put on the smaller authorities receiving only the 70 per cent. grant, recognising fully what Lord Hawke has said, that, where additional facilities are provided, he has taken authority in the regulations that the grant should be 100 per cent.
The noble Lord has done a great deal to clear our minds on the position, but these ports vary considerably in their minimum provision. You get a place which has a harbour and a slip or a pier; you get a place where there is, may be, a small graving dock or something of that kind, in which the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun about, say, a spare pair of dock gates might arise. Therefore, whilst the noble Lord has very much clarified our minds on the matter and removed a good many of the doubts that have been expressed by Lord Saltoun, it would help if, in conversation or in explanation, we could see to what extent these smaller harbours and ports are likely to be mulcted in requirements under these Orders which would be the subject of only a 70 per cent. grant. The noble Lord said that he did not think we were likely to be asked; but the kind of threat that we shall meet in the next war does not lead me to want to sit back and say, "That is going to be all right." There are various things that we have to think of and undertake now. Any kind of naval and coastal precautions which we take now will be wider than those taken in the last war. It would not cost a great deal more, in regard to preliminary precautionary measures before an emergency breaks out, to give to such smaller ports a reasonable prospect that they would not be mulcted in a debt which they could ill afford to service.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
LORD HAWKE: If the noble Viscount wishes to pursue further the matter of delay, I think he should put down a Motion so that there can be a debate on
174
the subject. When he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that I have gone a long way towards meeting the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, even on the 70 per cent. grant.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
5.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
L ORD HAWKE: My Lords, before: this stage of the Bill is finally disposed of, I felt I owed a duty to the House to explain that I have, by consultations in which he participated, explored the question raised on the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, as to whether it was right that in the event of there being any dispute between owners and seamen as to whether or not engine rooms were sufficiently light and airy to earn the benefits of the new Bill, the final court of appeal should be the Minister. After going into the matter thoroughly, I think my noble friend was convinced that in fact there is no higher and more competent tribunal to go to, and that the owners and the mariners themselves would not wish for any change. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(Lord Hawke).
On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS) BILL
5.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this, I hope, is a simpler matter than some with which we have been dealing. The ultimate object of this Bill is precisely the same as that of the gas and transport regulations which we have had before us to-day, to enable the Minister to make grants to the electricity boards towards the provision of works to enable them to function in the event of air attack. Your Lordships will wonder why, in the case of electricity, a Bill is necessary. There by hangs a very interesting legal tale. In regard to the other utilities, powers

175
given in the Civil Defence Act, 1939, are being revived through the authority of the Act of 1948. The snag here is that electricity had a special section to itself in the Act of 1939, Section 42, which gives powers to the Central Electricity Board to act with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners and to be reimbursed by grant.
When the electricity industry was nationalised, Section 42 of the Act of 1939 was repealed. For some time there was doubt in legal minds as to whether or not the very wide powers given in the Act of 1948 to revive the Act of 1939 from its suspension in 1945 and to amend it to keep in step with the passage of time made it possible to deal with electricity in the same way as with gas. After a good deal of thought, it was decided that a Bill was required. If the Bill is passed, regulations will immediately be laid on the lines of those for the gas industry. Your Lordships will note that, by reviving the Act of 1939, the rate of grant stands to be 50 per cent., as provided in the Act, but the regulations will provide in due course for 52¾ per cent., as in the case of gas. The type of equipment it is intended to be provided is largely spare switch-gear, and we shall have, in due course, an opportunity of debating the regulations which will be laid if this Bill is passed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2.—(Lord Hawke.)
5.28 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, here again the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—I am sorry to raise the point again—skilfully dodges the question of delay. I have just been reading the Report of the Select Committee which refers to this question of so-called legal difficulties, which seem to me to be simple. They have been overcome by the present Bill. I quote now from the OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons, Vol. 523 (No. 52), col. 1465), which states:
"Your Committee were perturbed to discover that difficulties had arisen over the grant regulations which have to be made before the industries can be reimbursed. The undertakings are reluctant to incur very substantial capital expenditure until they are assured that the can be reimbursed, and Your Committee find it incomprehensible that in the
176
five years since the passing of the Act, the Department concerned have not been able to find a solution to the legal difficulties."
That solution, which one would have thought would be perfectly simple for the legal authorities to discover, is contained in the present Bill before your Lordships' House. It must seem incomprehensible also to your Lordships that a simple Bill like this should not have been presented some years ago.
I gather from what the noble Lord says that regulations in a similar form to those that we have discussed in connection with other industries will be presented in due course, so it is clear that we have not finished with the various regulations which are necessary to carry out the purposes of the Civil Defence Act, 1948. The noble Lord has not said how long we shall have to wait. I hope we shall not have to wait two and a half years, or something of that sort, for them, but that we may have them at an early date while we have the matter in mind, and that in connection not only with this provision, which deals particularly with electricity undertakings, but also with all the regulations we have had before us to-day—gas, police and transport—steps will be taken by the appropriate authorities. supervised, as we hope, by the Government, to do what is necessary to ensure the due function of all these industries in the event of hostile attack. Whilst we must all hope that that necessity will not arise, the Government will bear a heavy responsibility, especially after the helpful response which the present regulations have received, if delay takes place and they do not ensure that these various industries take the necessary steps to put their house in order and to provide for such a contingency. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
5.31 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).

SHREWSBURY ESTATE BILL
Presented, and read 1.
House adjourned at twenty eight minutes before six o'clock.