HL Deb 13 June 1955 vol 193 cc36-46

3.53 p.m.

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 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, 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, 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 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- 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 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, 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- 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 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.