Lords Sitting of 13 June 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

INDIA OFFICE LIBRARY
LORD HAILEY: 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, with reference to the statement made in this House by the Secretary of State for India on the 23rd July, 1947, to the effect that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to retain in this country the historical records which were then in the custody of the India Office, Her Majesty's Government will say whether there has been any change of policy in this respect, and also whether a similar policy will, if necessary, be observed in regard to the retention of the contents of the India Office Library.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to make a statement. Your Lordships may have seen correspondence in the newspapers, in the course of which, as a result of the published account of some discussions taking place at New Delhi, a number of scholars and learned bodies have expressed serious misgivings lest it should have been decided to disperse or export the contents of the India Office Library. Let me therefore say at once that no such decision has been taken; nor could it be taken without the full concurrence of the United Kingdom Government, who were not parties to the discussions in question.
The India Office Library is one of the greatest oriental libraries in the world. It contains some 280,000 printed books, and a wealth of other material; including a great collection of Manuscripts in English and in oriental languages. Its scope is not
32
confined to India and Pakistan; it extends also to the literatures, histories, and cultures of many other Eastern countries, including, for example, Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Ceylon, Tibet, Nepal, Persia, and Arabia. It has always been readily accessible to scholars and research workers from all over the world. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the right course is that the Library should remain intact and in this country. But we would, of course, readily consider any suggestions that the Governments of India and Pakistan may wish to make to us as regards the detailed administration of, or access to, the Library.
As regards the historical records, that is to say the archives of the East India Company and the India Office, which are now in the custody of the Commonwealth Relations Office, I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's present Government adhere to the statement made in this House on July 23, 1947 by the noble Lord, the Earl of Listowel, who was then Secretary of State for India, to the effect that it was the Government's intention to retain those records in this country.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. May I ask him a supplementary question regarding the purely legal aspect of the retention of the Library? Is it not clear that, under the provisions of Section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935, we have a legal right to retain possession of the Library unless and until it is proposed to put the books or its other contents to a use other than that to which they were being put when the Act was passed in 1935?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, that I have taken legal advice on this matter and my legal advice is that this Library is the property of Her Majesty's Government, and it is in accordance with what the noble Lord has suggested in his supplementary question.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to hear from the noble Earl that he means to continue our policy in regard to the treatment of the historical records of the India Office. I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that it is desirable that whatever is done with the contents of the India Office Library should be done with the agree-

33
ment and consent of all the Commonwealth Governments concerned. I should like to ask him whether he has informed the Governments of India and of Pakistan of his proposal, and, if so, whether they have expressed any view.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the timing of this Question is a little unfortunate, but that could not be avoided. The Indian Minister for Education is arriving in this country tomorrow, and I have asked the High Commissioner to assure him of the fact that there was no discourtesy on my part and, of course, that I intended none, in answering this Question today. But I have had no representations from the Government of India or from the Government of Pakistan. In case I have misled anyone about the legal position, may I say that I think the legal position clearly is that no decision can be taken about the future of this Library and no alteration can be made without the consent of all three parties—the Indian Government, the Government of Pakistan and the British Government.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, as the result of the noble Earl's very satisfactory answer may I give him notice that. I shall withdraw the Question on this subject which I had down for Wednesday?

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make new arrangements as to the administration of criminal justice in Lancashire and matters connected therewith, and to amend the law of England and Wales as to recorders and courts of quarter sessions in boroughs, as to stipendiary magistrates and their deputies, as to the liability of boroughs to contribute to the costs of magistrates' courts and courts of quarter sessions for the county and as to the constitution for purposes of appeals of a court of quarter sessions for the county of London. I beg 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.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to police forces in Scotland and to the execution of warrants in the border counties of England and Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS (APPELLATE COMMITTEE)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name dealing with Judicial Business and the constitution of the Appellate Committee.
Moved, That this House, in discharge of its constitutional duty to act as the ultimate appellate tribunal in appeals from England, Scotland and. Northern Ireland, Orders that a Committee, which shall include all Lords qualified under section five of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment, be appointed to hear, during the present Session, such Appeals as may be referred to them, in order to secure the due expedition of public and judicial business; and that the Committee have leave to report to the House from time to time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE RAILWAY STRIKE
3.48 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor proceeds to move the Emergency Regulations which come next on the Order Paper, I feel sure that the House will wish me to communicate to them a statement on the present difficulties on the railways which is being made by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Labour, in another place. The statement is as follows.

35
"The House will no doubt expect me to let them know the position in the discussions which are going on in an effort to bring the railway strike to an end. As the House will know, in accordance with the normal conciliation procedure discussions continued for several days last week at the Ministry of Labour, and on Saturday I personally saw the representatives of the British Transport Commission and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. The purpose of these discussions is to find a basis on which work can be resumed, so that direct negotiations can take place between the parties in a strike-free atmosphere. They have centred upon the Society's claim for an increase in the basic rates of locomotive staff and the proposals by the Commission for higher rewards for special skill and responsibility which were made public at the weekend.
"I have had a further meeting with both the Commission and the Society this morning and the talks are continuing later this afternoon, although there are still substantial difficulties in-the way of a settlement of the dispute. In these circumstances, I am sure the House will agree that it would be inappropriate for me to make any detailed statement, and that whilst the discussions are at this critical stage it would be undesirable to debate the matter on the Floor of the House."
In view of what my right honourable friend is saying in another place, I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be wiser for us, too, not to discuss this subject in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I am quite certain that there are many noble Lords in all parts of the House who might have constructive ideas which they would like to put before your Lordships on the problems which are raised by the present troubles, and no doubt an opportunity will occur for that at an early date; but, clearly, while the talks are still continuing in a delicate stage it would not be appropriate to ventilate these ideas at large. I feel certain, therefore, that the House, which is always so wise in these matters, will not rush in at this stage but will give an opportunity for those actively engaged in the talks to try to find a proper solution satisfactory to all concerned.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it is no doubt very hard that we shall have to tear up the carefully prepared notes of our "impromptu" speeches, but in view of what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has said I have no doubt that we should be wrong today not to acquiesce in his views. I would only say that the time must arrive in the near future, in happier circumstances, when we shall have the right to debate this matter and to make then those constructive suggestions which we are not making to-day.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, it is obvious that the course proposed is the right one; and on behalf of the Liberal Peers I should like to say that we shall fall in with it and shall take no further part in the discussion to-day. That does not mean, however, that we shall remain silent later.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 31st May, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on the 7th June, 1955, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of section 2 (4) of the said Act. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to move the Resolution in my name on the Order Paper, I am going to ask your Lordships to allow me to trespass a little on your time, because I think it right that, whenever emergency powers are asked for, this House should consider, first of all, their constitutional correctness and, secondly, whether the extent of the powers is justified by the emergency which calls them forth. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to look for a moment at the statutory background on which this Resolution is based.
Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, provides that if at any time it appears to Her Majesty that action has been taken or is threatened which is calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial part of the community, of the

37
essentials of life, Her Majesty may by proclamation declare that a state of emergency exists. Under Section 2 of the Act, where a proclamation of emergency has been made, Her Majesty may by Order in Council make Regulations for securing the essentials of life to the community.
The Act provides that where a proclamation of emergency has been made the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament; and if Parliament is separated by such adjournment or Prorogation as will not expire within five days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within five days. The Emergency Regulations are to be laid before Parliament "as soon as may be after they are made." They do not continue in force after the expiration of seven days from the time when they are laid unless a Resolution is passed by both Houses providing for their continuance.
The difficulty on this occasion, as must be apparent to your Lordships, is that the railway strike began at a time when Parliament was dissolved. The Act of 1920 does not make specific provision to cover the situation when Parliament has been dissolved. As your Lordships will have noted, the provision about recalling Parliament within five days applies only when Parliament has been adjourned or prorogued; and it has been suggested in certain quarters that there is no power under the Act to make a proclamation of emergency and Emergency Regulations at a time when Parliament is dissolved. The Government take the view that this is to put an altogether too narrow construction upon the Act. We stand firmly by the opinion that a proclamation and Emergency Regulations can be made during a Dissolution; and that in such a case it is the duty of the Executive to lay the Emergency Regulations as soon as the new Parliament assembles, and to communicate the occasion of the proclamation to Parliament at the first moment at which this can he done in accordance with the constitutional practice and custom of Parliament—that is, in the gracious Speech from the Throne.
To suggest that there is no power to make a proclamation of emergency under Section 1 (1) of the Act during a Dissolution, because it is not possible to communicate the proclamation to Parliament forthwith, or within five days, is,
38
in the view of the Government, to misunderstand completely the provisions both of Section 1 (1) and Section 1 (2). Section 1 (2) makes certain mandatory provision about communicating the proclamation to Parliament when there is a Parliament in being, but Section 1 (2) does not operate to restrict the power to issue a proclamation under the first subsection to a time when Parliament is in being. Section 1 (1) opens with the words:
"If at any time it appears,"
and the Government stand firmly by the view that this is not restricted in any way. I think that any noble Lord who has tried to construe the Act in the light of the constitutional position during a Dissolution would agree that it cannot be argued that any such restriction arises.
Another point arises in this connection which I think I ought to put before your Lordships. We say that the Regulations have been laid and the occasion of the emergency communicated to Parliament at the earliest possible moment. The reason for that is that there is no power to advance the date of meeting of a new Parliament. The Meeting of Parliament Acts, 1797 and 1799, make general provision for the earlier recall of a Parliament which has been prorogued or adjourned, but there is no corresponding provision to cover the position which arises during a Dissolution, save that in the event of the demise of the Crown, the Act of 1797 provides for the recall of the old Parliament. We take the view that the new Parliament could not have been called before June 7, the date fixed in the Dissolution proclamation and in the election writs, under any Prerogative power. The proclamation of emergency is valid only for a month, and the Regulations, if not revoked earlier, will automatically lapse at the end of that time unless a further proclamation and new Regulations have been made before the end of that period. I am sure all your Lordships join with me in profoundly hoping that there will be no need to take that course.
Before I deal with the Regulations, I should like to remind your Lordships of the precedents, because I think this is important from a point of view that will emerge. There have been five previous occasions on which an emergency has been proclaimed under this Act—namely,

39
the coal strike of 1921, the railway strike of 1924, the General Strike of 1926, the dock strike of 1948 and the dock strike of 1949. On three of these occasions Emergency Regulations were made. As your Lordships will see when I come briefly to run through them, we have based these Regulations on those made by our predecessors in 1949. On that occasion the Regulations were in force from July 12 to July 26, when the proclamation was revoked. I think we should all agree that emergency powers should be introduced only when the situation is of sufficient gravity to warrant such an exceptional measure; but, on the other hand, when there is a serious threat to supplies and services essential to the safety and life of the community, then it would be wrong of the Government not to make use of those powers. It is the duty of any Government with a sense of responsibility towards the community to do everything in their power to maintain the essentials of life for the community. As I indicated to your Lordships—and I am glad to make this point—on the last two occasions when an emergency was proclaimed our predecessors were in office, and therefore there is no Party question arising on the use of such powers.
I now turn to the Regulations. Their purpose is to secure the supplies and services essential to the life of the community and to see that they are maintained despite the grave situation which has been created. I hope your Lordships will agree—because this has certainly been the purpose of the Government—that the powers contained in the Regulations are the minimum necessary for this immediate purpose. Should, contrary to our hopes, the emergency continue for a long time, it may be necessary to add to the Regulations; but I hope that this will not be the case. The first seven Regulations deal with transport, and they are designed, in the main, to suspend certain of the ordinary restrictions so as to enable the maximum use to be made of road transport. Regulation No. 1 deals with the use of goods vehicles and authorises their use for the carriage of goods for hire or reward or in connection with trade or business, even though the vehicle may have no carrier's licence, or may have a licence which is not appropriate for the purpose for which it is wished to use the
40
vehicle. Regulation No. 2 empowers the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to waive certain requirements regarding the use of motor vehicles for the carriage of passengers; and Regulation No. 3 makes other provisions with regard to road passenger vehicles. Regulation No. 3 authorises, under paragraph (1), persons to drive or act as conductors of passenger service vehicles, tram and trolley vehicles without having a licence, and under paragraph (2) makes free certain restrictions with regard to the carriage of passengers.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is here, and I should like to say a word or two with regard to Regulation 4, which covers the use of vehicles not complying with the regulations as to construction or their use thereof. That is a relaxation of the Construction and Use Order that is necessary in certain circumstances. I want to point out that in the use of these powers instructions have been given not to authorise the use of vehicles unless they have proper brakes; and also—and this is the point on which I ventured in all friendliness to mention the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—instructions have been issued to try to avoid using vehicles that contravene the provisions as to overladen weight, and also with regard to the width of vehicles, so that they shall not be used if they exceed a width of 11 feet. I mention that because I think it is important to show that we have tried to use the Regulations so as not to interfere with the comfort of other people on the highway.
I should also like to say a word or two on Regulation 6, because that deals with the question of third party insurance in relation to the use of road vehicles. This Regulation enables the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to permit the use on roads of vehicles for which a third party insurance policy is not strictly in force for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. However, it does not authorise the Minister to allow the dispensing with the law requiring vehicles to be covered by third party insurance; it merely enables him to authorise the waiving of certain legal requirements, and, in particular, the need to possess a certificate of insurance.
Regulation 7 deals with the relaxation of statutory requirements as to the run-

41
ning of transport services by the British Transport Commission and the London Transport Executive. This can be done only with the approval of the Minister, and I think the rights are safeguarded. In Regulation 8 we turn to a different field. This Regulation gives the Postmaster-General power to impose certain restrictions on postal, telegraph and telephone services. Your Lordships may have noticed that the Postmaster-General used these powers in order to refuse to accept packages over 8 oz. in weight up to to-day; but that has been changed, and he has now said that he will accept them up to 1 lb. in weight.
The next four Regulations deal with the supplies of power, of liquid fuels and of foodstuffs. Broadly, their object is not to insist on the statutory requirements under which undertakers work in regard to the supply of electricity and gas—that is Regulation 9; and Regulation 10 is to regulate the consumption of electricity and gas. Regulation 11 deals with the distribution of liquid fuel and allows the Minister of Fuel and Power to give directions to producers and suppliers as to the way in which they shall dispose of supplies. It would not allow him to re-impose rationing as it obtained during the war. Regulation 12 gives similar powers to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with regard to the distribution of food and animal feeding stuffs; and Regulation 13 permits the requisitioning of chattels. I want to make it clear that these powers are regarded as background powers, and will be used only if the strike spreads or is prolonged.
I should now like to make one or two points with regard to the next four Regulations, Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17, because they are the only Regulations which directly create new criminal offences, and that must be a matter of great responsibility and care for all of your Lordships. What I should like to say is this: that the penal regulations are fewer than under the 1949 Code. That Code included, for example, a regulation giving the police power to stop and search vehicles, which we have not taken. The second point I wanted to make is that nothing in the Regulations makes it an offence to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade another person to do so.
With these preliminary words, I point out to your Lordships that Regulation 14 makes it an offence to do or omit to do
42
anything with intent to hinder the performance of essential services, or to impair the usefulness of any works or premises required for essential services. An identical Regulation was included in the Emergency Regulations of 1949, and a similar Regulation appeared in the Codes of 1921 and 1926. The need for them is that the ordinary law of malicious damage is not adequate to deal with all the ways in which essential services may be wilfully interfered with. Regulation 15 deals with trespassing on, or loitering near, for any purpose prejudicial to the public safety, any premises used for the purposes of essential services. Again, an identical Regulation was included in the Regulations of 1949.
Regulations 16 and 17 make it an offence to endanger, obstruct or interfere with any member of Her Majesty's Forces, any police constable or other person acting under the Regulations, or performing essential services, or to induce or attempt to induce any member of Her Majesty's Forces or police constable to withhold his services or commit breaches of discipline. Again, these Regulations are identical with the Regulations in the 1949 Code and have been included for the same reason as they were included at that time: that is, because of the great importance attaching during the emergency to the police and other persons performing essential services. Regulation 13 deals with the employment of police forces, and under that Regulation my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, has given directions for the movement of reinforcements from the provinces to the Metropolitan Police District in order to help the Metropolitan Police to deal with the special traffic problems in London. As I indicated, Regulations 19 to 21, which deal, with the power to arrest, attempts to commit offences, penalties and place of trial, are the necessary ancillary provisions to the constitution of these offences which we think are the minimum number that could be constituted. Again, they are identical with the Regulations included in the 1949 Regulations and similar to those in previous Codes. Regulations 22 to 25 are also the usual ancillary provisions, and also provide for a short title, the date of operation, and so on.
I am sorry if your Lordships feel that I have trespassed on your time by going through these Regulations, but, as I say,

43
I think it is important that, when taking special powers, we should do so with full knowledge and the matter having been put as adequately before the House as possible. I have indicated that in the greater number of the Regulations, and certainly in the case of all the controversial Regulations, these are identical with those included in the Regulations made on earlier occasions, including those of the dock strike of 1949. The other point is that I want your Lordships to realise that certain of these Regulations will not, it is hoped, be put into use, but they are essential as providing reserve powers to which resort can be had if the situation should deteriorate. I want to assure your Lordships that I personally went through all the suggested powers and satisfied myself, so far as I could, with some experience of these matters, that they were the minimum required, and no more.
I need hardly say that Her Majesty's present advisers have no love of Regulations for their own sake, and if the essential services can be maintained without their use, so much the better. But our primary responsibility is to the community to secure these services for the community; and when that is necessary we shall not hesitate to ask your Lordships' House for powers to do it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 31st May 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on the 7th June 1955, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of section 2 (4) of the said Act.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.16 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I was glad to hear that Her Majesty's advisers had no love of Regulations for their own sake. I never thought they had. I cannot imagine that any sane man would desire Regulations merely for the sake of passing them—certainly the former Government did not. We were confronted with a similar situation to this in 1949 and 1948, and I, as Lord Chancellor, went with the greatest care through the Regulations we then propounded. Having done so, I came to the conclusion that it was necessary for us to have those Regu-
44
lations, while recognising that we must use them with discretion, and remembering that we should be responsible to Parliament for the way in which we administered them. I have gone through the Regulations now before the House, and, so far as I can make out, in all important respects they have their counterpart in those which we had in 1948 and 1949. Therefore, I do not think we can refuse these Regulations to the Government at the present time, but must concur in the Motion which the Lord Chancellor has moved.
I should like, however, to add two comments. First, I think the Lord Chancellor was absolutely right to go through this matter carefully. Wherever Regulations possibly involving the liberty of the subject are concerned, I hope this House will always watch them with due anxiety to see whether they are really necessary: we must not mind spending our time in careful consideration of them. Secondly, I would say this. I listened to the Lord Chancellor expounding the view that these Regulations were effective notwithstanding the Dissolution of Parliament. I do not dissent from his view, but I do not think it is quite so obvious as he seems to think it is. I believe it to be right, but it is the fact that Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1920 provided that whenever there was a proclamation of emergency the occasion was to be communicated to Parliament forthwith; and if Parliament was separated by an adjournment or prorogation which would not expire within five days it was to be called together. The argument runs that that was intended to be a safeguard on the power of using Regulations; and that if there is no possibility of calling Parliament together, you cannot have the Regulations, because you cannot have the safeguard. I do not say that that view is right, but it is a view which is held in responsible quarters, and to my mind there is something to be said for it. I hope that the Government will not dismiss from their minds altogether the possibility hereafter of clearing away that ambiguity, if necessary by amending legislation. I say no more, except that I think your Lordships ought to grant to the Government the request they make, hoping that they will not find it necessary to use these powers to any considerable or substantial extent.
4.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, nothing I intend to say will controvert one word which my noble and learned Leader has said, but I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for giving your Lordships such full information about the Regulations for the easing of the restrictions on road transport which has been found necessary. I think we could, with propriety, extend a word of thanks to all those, not only the lorry drivers and the lorry operators but the private motorists, who have come to the rescue of the unfortunate citizen in such a splendid manner. I can only hope-1 trust I shall not be accused of making Party capital, which is the last thing I should desire to do—that the lessons of this last week will not be lost upon Her Majesty's Government when, in due course, they bring before your Lordships once again a Road Traffic Bill, because it appears to me, and always has appeared to me, to be rather Gilbertian that successive Governments spend nearly all their time in putting shackles around road transport and in hampering its development, while the first method of transport to which they fly in a case of emergency is road transport. I feel certain that we have learnt considerable lessons during this last week. In the matter of the handling of the traffic, I have nothing but praise for the police who have managed to bring a remarkable degree of order out of what threatened to be complete chaos. I can only hope that the lessons which have been brought home to us during this last week will be reflected in the Government's actions in the months to come.
4.22 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, no one who reads these Regulations, and certainly no one who has listened to the Lord Chancellor, can fail to realise their immensely sweeping character in this state of emergency. Noble Lords who sit on these Benches had no responsibility for what was done in either 1948 or 1949; nor have they for what is being done at the present time. Therefore, perhaps we shall be excused if we constitute ourselves in a peculiar manner "watchdogs" to ascertain how far these Regulations go in restricting liberty and to see, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that only the minimum Regulations necessary are used. That they are far-reaching
46
is evident from just looking at the list: the requisitioning of chattels—that is a very wide term and must be limited except by the decision of the Executive; then trespassing and loitering—the power given to the owner-occupier of premises to turn anyone off his premises. Finally, I will mention the power to arrest without warrant. All those are powers of a kind which this House must watch with the greatest jealousy. I was interested when the Lord Chancellor said that there was nothing in Regulations 11 and 12 that could give any power to re-establish rationing. It might be necessary to reestablish rationing in certain conditions, but I am wondering just what those conditions would be. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will explain exactly what it is that limits the Regulations in that respect.
Having given notice that our approach is definitely a critical one, I should add, finally, that we do not in any way challenge the view that the Government must impose Regulations under this state of emergency, because, as my noble friend Lord Samuel said the other day in his letter to The Times, it inevitably happens that when a dispute touches a vital nerve, the vital activities of the country, the State and Parliament find themselves necessarily a party to the dispute. In approving these Regulations we accept that situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will only reassure the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on a strictly practical basis. It would take far more time than I am sure this rather mournful occasion could give us to re-establish a system of rationing. There is that practical consideration, apart from any difficulties of construction. I will not say any more except to assure the noble Lord that he can sleep easily on that point. Every one of your Lordships has been so kind with regard to the purpose, the intent and the content of the Regulations, that I do not think any further Government reply is necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHINESE ENGINEERING AND MINING COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the Bill had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declaration of the agent: Bill presented; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
DEWSBURY MOOR CREMATORIUM BILL [H.L.] ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declaration of the agent: Bills presented; read 1a, and deemed to have been read 2a and committed.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.] NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declarations of the agents: Bills presented; read 1a, and deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committees.
GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the Bill had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declaration of the agent: Bill presented, and read 1a.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the Bill had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declaration of the agent: Bill presented; read 1a, and deemed to have been read 2a.

BLYTH GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
SWANSEA CORPORATION (FAIRWOOD COMMON) BILL [H.L.]
GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declarations of the agents: Bills presented; read 1a, and deemed to have been read 2a and committed, the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.] CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the. Bills had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declarations of the agents: Bills presented; read 1a, and deemed to have passed through all their remaining stages; Bills sent to the Commons.

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House that (pursuant to the Resolutions of the 26th April last) the proposed Bill had been deposited in the Private Bill Office, together with the declaration of the agent: Bill presented: read 1a, and deemed to have been read 2a and committed (the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection), and to be awaiting Report from the Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past four o'clock.