Lords Sitting of 19 November 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Ebury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TARIFFS ON STEEL
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in asking leave to put the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I would explain that, since the Question was framed, a statement has been made which, of course, replaces the word "rumours" in the Question.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Press rumours of a contemplated lowering of tariffs on steel have any foundation; if so, what confirmation would be necessary by Parliament; what weight was imported in 1956 from U.S.A.; what tariff reductions in compensation or reciprocity where import is normally substantial, such as for instance wool textiles, will be immediately obtained.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, it is proposed shortly to enter into an Agreement with the European Coal and Steel Community, under which the United Kingdom duties on the main iron and steel products will be reduced to 10 per cent., with appropriate alternative specific rates. The Agreement will be published and laid before Parliament in the usual way before it is ratified. The weight of imports of the products concerned from the United States of America in 1956 was about 390,000 tons. Since the United States is not a party to the proposed Agreement, the question of compensation or reciprocity from that source does not arise, but under the Agreement the countries of the Community will introduce new rates of duty which in some cases will mean substantial reductions.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Answer?
376
The latter part of it, if I understood it correctly, implies that under the most-favoured-nation treatment a concession to Europe carries an equal concession to the United States, so that the reduced rate of duty will be applicable to imports from the United States and, apparently, without reciprocal advantage in reductions of tariffs on other items exported from the United Kingdom to the United States.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, we are undertaking no commitment toward the United States of America in regard to maintaining our tariff at the new level; we could raise it after consultation with the parties to the Agreement, without any reference to the United States. That being so, there is no ground for securing compensating concessions from the United States. The compensation we have obtained is from the parties to the Agreement in the form of a harmonised steel tariff for the six countries at a less restrictive level.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, without asking the noble Lord to be more explicit now, I would ask him whether he will consider the point that apparently a reduction of duty has been extended to the United States unsought, without trading advantages to us in other directions.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, but that is inevitable under the procedure we have followed.

BACON SUPPLIES
2.38 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stand; in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what, at the current rate, is the annual cost of the bacon subsidy; what is the relation of the present import rate by weight to current domestic production.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there is no subsidy on bacon, but home producers of pigs, whether sold for the production of bacon or pork or for manufacturing receive guarantee payments. The 1957–58 Estimates included provision for £36·6 million to cover these payments in the United Kingdom. At present about 60 per cent. of total supplies of bacon and 7 per cent. of pork are imported.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. With regard to the latter part, in which reference is made to imports, may I ask him whether he will seek to have consideration given to increasing the quotas of pig products from other countries, now limited, who would be prepared to sell at the going price, to the benefit of the United Kingdom consumer?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the only thing I can do in the circumstances is to convey my noble friend's words to my right honourable friend for his consideration.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope that in conveying those words it will not be with any recommendation, because the pig position is desperate in this country, and we certainly do not want more imports without the home producer being carefully looked after.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he understands, from the question just put to him, that noble Lords opposite do not wish to see the cost of living of this country reduced?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, so far as this matter has gone, I think I can only say that my second reply was intended to be a little flat in tone.

THE LAW OFFICERS AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: 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 who issues the Writs summoning the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to attend the House of Lords; what is the text of those Writs; what rights of sitting, speaking and voting they confer; and what was the last date on which either of the Law Officers responded.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, Writs commanding the attendance of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as Assistants to the House of Lords are issued under the Great Seal by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Sovereign.
378
Historically speaking, they were originally summoned along with the other so-called Temporal Assistants, including the Judges of the Realm, Barons of the Exchequer of the Coif and the civilian Masters in Chancery, who were included in the ancient Concilium Regis. The texts of their Writs are similar to those issued at the present day to Her Majesty's Judges who are not summoned as Members of the House but who are commanded to attend and give their advice. I should be glad to show copies to the noble Viscount if he wishes.
As to their rights of sitting, speaking and voting, if the noble Viscount would look at Chief Justice Coke's Fourth Institute, Chapter 1, he will see there laid down that the Temporal Assistants who were summoned to the Upper House of Parliament had no "voices." Standing Order 19 of the House of Lords now provides that:
"The Judges, when summoned to attend the House, are not to speak or deliver any opinion until it be required, and they be admitted so to do by the major part of the House in case of difference."
Although the Law Officers are not mentioned in the Standing Order, I have no doubt that they would, if they attended, be in a similar position to the Judges. No record exists showing the exact occasion when one of the Law Officers last obeyed such a Writ; but it is almost certain that the Writ has not been obeyed since 1742, and very probably the Law Officers had ceased to attend before 1700. No records have been discovered, either in the Parliament Office, the Crown Office or in the Attorney General's Office enabling me to give the noble Viscount a more precise answer.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, in thanking the Lord Chancellor most sincerely for an informative Lind thrilling Answer, may I ask this simple supplementary? Does the fact that these Law Officers receive this Writ of Attendance, which in substance is exactly the same as the Writ of Summons that we receive, disqualify them from sitting in the House of Commons?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It does not. But I think that the history of this matter is a most interesting commentary on the relations between the Houses, and if noble Lords will bear with me I will explain how the position arose. I hope

379
that I am not trespassing on your Lordships' time.
From the middle of the fifteenth century until the seventeenth century the King's Attorney—or "Attorney General"—sat on the Woolsack as an Assistant to the House of Lords, where he performed the functions of giving advice when asked and of taking Bills to the Commons. Under Henry VIII he sometimes also assisted in drafting Bills. As late as 1844 it was still theoretically possible for the Judges, as Assistants, to be asked to take Messages to the Commons. The noble Viscount will find that in the first edition of Erskine May.
By the beginning of the seventeenth century the offices of Attorney General and Solicitor General (who was first summoned to the House of Lords in 1809) were very much what they are to-day. Coke refers to the "King's Learned Councell" among the Temporal Assistants of the House of Lords and distinguishes between the Writs (I would emphasise this because I think it deals with the specific point the noble Viscount was making) which call them to attend to give their advice and the Writs summoning the Barons to Parliament. As I said, it seems that, although they "had no voice," the Law Officers and Judges were expected to attend the House. The change which took place during the century was the result of the constitutional change in the relationship between the Houses. A distinction was made between the Attorney General and the Solicitor General—a distinction for which, if I may say so, as I have held both offices, there seems to be no good reason, except that the former was the more important figure. But it is clear that although Solicitors General sat, and even acted as Speaker in another place in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the Commons objected to the Attorney General doing the same on account of his close association with your Lordships' House. In 1614 Francis Bacon was allowed to sit, but it was resolved that in future no Attorney General should do so. The prohibition was effective in 1640, but in 1673 Francis North was permitted to sit.
From this time onwards it became normal for the Attorney General to be a Member of the Commons. Although
380
before 1700 at least two (Sir William Jones and Sir John Trevor) were not. It is interesting to note that during this period the Judges did not attend your Lordships' House as often as your Lordships' predecessors would have wished, and it is probable that the Law Officers ceased attending altogether. Macqueen's Practice of the House of Lords, published in 1842, states at page 46 that "for upwards of a century and a half" the duties of Assistants had been exclusively performed by the Judges who, not being permitted to sit in the House of Commons, had no divided loyalty. Macqueen also records that in 1685 it was a Standing Order that neither the Attorney General nor any other assistant should be heard at the Bar of this House as counsel for any private individual. From that date it is probable that the Attorney General preferred to appear as counsel and ceased to act as Assistant—indeed, in 1692 your Lordships petitioned the Crown for the services of Attorney General Somers as Assistant, but the outcome of that Petition is unknown.
The next significant piece of evidence is the Standing Order of 1742 which amended the prohibition of 1685 by limiting it to Assistants who had taken their places on the Woolsack. This Order was still in force in 1844, but is no longer preserved in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords. Order No. VII of the 1936 Standing Orders reads as follows:
"The learned Counsel are likewise to attend on the Woolsacks, but are never covered."
The marginal note to the Order is "King's Counsel". The Parliament Office consider that this Order did not refer to the Law Officers, but they cannot be certain. The 1st Edition of Erskine May, in 1842. deals with all the Temporal Assistants of the House and sets out a Standing Order which is preserved almost exactly in Order VI of 1936, though applied there only to Judges and Privy Councillors.
My Lords, it is interesting that at the present day the Attorney General advises the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House. It is arguable whether he then appears as Assistant or as counsel for the Crown. I should think the view which is more widely held is that he appears as counsel for the Crown. But he also advises the Personal Bills Committee of your Lordships' House, and

381
there the old position of Assistant shades off very mildly into the position of counsel for the Crown.
Let me take another example. Suppose that, to the good fortune of your Lordships, I was absent and the Woolsack was occupied by my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire (I take him as an example because he is a descendant of almost the most famous lay client in legal constitutional struggles, John Hampden, in the ship money case), and suppose that during the course of a debate your Lordships wanted to know what was the view of the law which underlay the position taken by Her Majesty's Government. It would still be open to my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire to ask the Attorney General to come to the Bar of the House to carry on the view that was taken in about 1700 and to advise your Lordships upon the law. The essential difference is that it has always been an advisory position and not in any way as a Member of your Lordships' House. I apologise for detaining your Lordships for so long, but this is a point of interest to myself, and I hope that my remarks have been not unhelpful to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, in common, I am sure, with all Members of the House, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. But in that wealth of historical material he has overlooked the question I asked him, which was: does the fact that the present Attorney General and Solicitor General both receive Writs cause them to be ineligible for a seat in the House of Commons?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry that in that wealth of historical detail the noble Viscount did not hear my preliminary answer to his question. It was admirably short. It was, No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the Lord Chancellor explain why it is that these two Officers are privileged? Any other Member of the House of Commons who receives a Writ to come here thereby, whether he accepts the Writ or not, vacates his seat. Why are the two Law Officers excluded from that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have put the point, and I think the noble Viscount will find that it occurs in my original Answer and in the enlargement which I gave him. It is because it is a Writ summoning them to advise the House, and not to be Members of the House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am sorry, but the Lord Chancellor cannot, I think, have read the two Writs. I will read them to him. The first Writ is the Writ of Attendance which the Attorney General receives, which says, "You must attend in your place personally to treat and give your advice." The Writ which we receive is, "To treat and give your counsel." In substance, there is no difference whatever between the two, and I should like to know why this disqualification falls on all Members of the House of Commons except these two Law Officers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made the distinction by his own words. The first is a Writ summoning them to attend and advise; the second is a Writ summoning them to attend and counsel. To everyone who knows the noble Viscount well, especially some who know him as well as I do, it means that when the noble Viscount is summoned to counsel the House he has a voice—and a very powerful voice. The Law Officers have no voice unless they are requested to advise. It would be a terrible detriment to your Lordships' House if the noble Viscount were in the position that he was able to address the House only if your Lordships commanded.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)
2.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the first of the five Motions which stand in my name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships are aware, each of them requires to be approved separately by your Lordships, but if the House will allow me, it would be convenient, I think, for me to deal with the five in a single speech. They are all closely related being concerned with the continuance for another year of various emergency provisions.
Every year Her Majesty's Government have to ask Parliament for these provisions to be extended, since otherwise they would lapse. The statutory framework is somewhat complicated, and for the last two years the House has forgiven me—perhaps it has even been grateful to me—for forbearing to explain the legal relationship between the various Statutes which affect these five Motions. Unless your Lordships particularly wish me to, I shall not explain it this time. The details are contained in the White Paper, especially in paragraphs 1 and 4 to 7, and I shall be pleased to assist any noble Lord in unravelling its mysteries. These Motions are now annuals, but I would not say that all the powers we seek to renew are "hardy annuals". Your Lordships will see that some of last year's crop have failed to survive the rigours of the 1957 climate, and I hope that some of this year's will go to swell the 1958 rubbish heap.
May I deal first with the Defence Regulations? This time last year I had to ask the House to renew 58, and I feared I should to-day be asking for not many fewer to be given another year of life. I am glad to say I was pessimistic—16 have perished and only 42 need be renewed. Of these 42, 17 only are substantive and the remainder merely ancillary: so we really have made some progress. Your Lordships may be interested
384
to know that in England and Wales prosecutions under the Regulations fell from 251 to 1955 to 167 in 1956; the figures for requisitioned buildings in September this year were 248 compared with 376 the year before. It has been our policy to supersede these Regulations by Acts of Parliament, as your Lordships in all quarters of the House have requested us. Legislation which has come into force this year has accounted for Defence Regulation 60A, and the Agriculture Act, 1957, has done the same service for many of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations: what is more, we are not proposing to renew the survivors.
My Lords, there is a respectable list of Regulations and Emergency Laws which will not, I hope, survive next year, though we must renew them for the present. Regulation 62 will go: it deals with the cultivation of requisitioned land and is now required only to enable the Minister to wind up operations. This function should be completed before long. Regulations 49, 50, 51, 51A, 52 and 85 are used mainly for defence purposes and to enable open-cast mining to be carried on. From the gracious Speech noble Lords will already have learned of the Government's intention to replace these powers by legislation fully debated in Parliament. What is more, requisitioning of land will come to an end—it will either have to be relinquished or retained by agreement. This will be a great step forward. I might mention here that the emergency legislation (Section 2 of the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Act, 1951) will also be superseded.
If your Lordships will look at the second Motion, it will be seen that the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations of 1941 are to be renewed. Closely allied are the fourth and fifth Motions which continue certain provisions of the Patents Act and Registered Designs Act, 1949. As I have told your Lordships, there has been much discussion with industry on these points, and I hope that it will not be long before a Bill is before Parliament dealing with that subject. The third Motion will not, I hope, have to be moved next year: it keeps in operation for a year four Statutes which deal with Agriculture and Land. Once the Wheat Commission is wound up, the Agriculture Act of 1957 can take over and that should have occurred by this time next year. This

385
should mean that agriculture will be completely outside the scope of emergency legislation. If my hopes are fulfilled, only the first and second Motions will reappear next Session. They are necessary because the hardest part of the hard core is built of these regulations and, as I prophesied, is proving exceedingly in tractable.
May I dispose at once of one aspect of the first Motion? It would continue powers—apart from the Defence and Defence (Finance) Regulations—under three Statutes: of these, two deal with emergency powers over land and should perish shortly. I have already mentioned that. The third may reappear: under the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, the Board of Trade will be empowered to wind up current trading operations and to continue to trade in imported jute goods—which it must do to safeguard our jute industry.
The real hard core can be generally described as financial and economic. Defence Regulation 55 is needed to control the supply of strategic goods outside the United Kingdom, without which the United Kingdom could not comply with its international obligations. That Regulation, and Regulations 55AA and 55AB, are also required for other purposes. Regulation 46 reinforces this control by giving powers over shipping. Defence Regulations 50A and 56 enable the rapid taking of water in time of drought. We hope in time to replace this regulation with legislation, but the subject has proved exceptionally difficult, and I cannot at the moment give any estimate of time when definite proposals can be made. We still require Regulation 6 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, which authorises the use of members of the armed Forces temporarily for agricultural or other important work. Finally, there is a miscellaneous group, consisting of Regulations 58AA and 59, which respectively enable the Industrial Disputes Tribunal to be kept for another year and exemption to be given from the rather inflexible provisions of the Factories Act, 1937. Both should be replaced by legislation, but are meanwhile needed, and I cannot say how soon they may be superseded. Last of all, there are the Defence (Finance) Regulations, of which only one substantive provision
386
remains. Its main purpose is to supplement exchange control over financial relations with other sterling countries.
My Lords, I feel no satisfaction in moving these Motions, save that each year I can report that fewer and fewer of the emergency powers remain. This last year progress has been made. Next year, with the legislation which we are going to introduce, it should be even better, and I hope that the time will come when I shall have not only a much simpler and shorter tale to tell the House but, to the immense satisfaction of the House, no tale at all.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, be continued in force for a farther period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has explained these Regulations with his usual care. We have come to be somewhat familiar with the statement he has made and with that of his learned predecessor. Every year the story is that there has been a reduction in the number of Regulations and that it is hoped that the following year there will be a still further reduction. The process of "setting the people free" is becoming a somewhat difficult one and a somewhat prolonged one; and, at this rate, if we continue to reduce the number of Regulations by the proportion which the noble and learned Viscount has told us we have done this year, it may be somewhere about 1975 before the noble and learned Viscount has the opportunity of making the statement which he tells us he is looking forward to make.
But is the noble and learned Viscount really "setting the people free," even when he does away with some of these Regulations? All he is doing is to convert these temporary Regulations into permanent ones; instead of imposing a sentence from year to year, he is giving the people a life sentence. That is not what it was believed was going to happen. We understood that these Regulations were a burden on the people, and that although

387
they were necessary during war time, when they were imposed, in peace time they were not at all necessary. I have read from time to time the fiery speeches that used to be levelled in this Chamber and in another place when these Regulations were submitted. All the "heavy guns"—the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Earls, Lord Woolton and Lord Swinton, and the lesser guns—were all fired at the poor Lord Chancellor of the day and he was asked when he was going to "set the people free" and relieve them of these Regulations. That was four or five years after the end of the war. The present time is twelve years after the end of the war, and still the people are not free; and, apparently, they are never going to be free because, instead of an end being put to these Regulations, many of them are to be made permanent.
Furthermore, the justification for some of the Regulations is not entirely what I understood it to be. For instance, Regulation 55 seems to me to go very much further than the requirements mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount just now. He told us that Regulation 55 was necessary to protect overseas interests, shipping and so on; but if noble Lords will look at Regulation 55 they will see that it goes very much further. I do not know whether this is one that is to be translated into permanent legislation, but I ask noble Lords just to look at the beginning of it. The Regulation says:
"A competent authority, so far as appears to that authority to be necessary … may by order provide—
(a) for regulating or prohibiting the production, treatment, keeping, storage, movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of articles of any description …"
That is a fairly wide power and it is not confined to conditions abroad; so far as I can see, it applies to this country as well. Then the Regulation provides, in paragraph (e),
"for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the competent authority thinks it expedient for the purposes of the order to provide …"
I do not know whether this Regulation was invoked in order to ration petrol—perhaps the noble and learned Viscount could tell us that. But this is a very wide power which the Government are now asking this House to approve for another year. I do not know whether,
388
afterwards, it is to be put into permanent legislation. I do not want to oppose these Regulations. I accept that some of them are necessary. Indeed, I am prepared to accept that they are all necessary, and that the noble and learned Viscount and the Government have gone through them all and are satisfied that for the purposes of good government they are still required. Nevertheless, I feel it right that we should put on record that at the time—six, seven or eight years ago—when we were criticised for retaining Regulations we had the same point of view; and we were much closer then to the end of the war. At that time we were not in a position—or certainly much less so than the Government are to-day—to decide which of the Regulations would still be required.
May I say, in conclusion, that these Regulations have been investigated by the Special Orders Committee of this House, and there is a Report from that Committee. This is what they say:
"That in the opinion of the Committee the Orders cannot be passed by the House without special attention …"
I hope the House will give them special attention. Later the Committee say:
"Whilst in no way suggesting that these Orders are not proper to be approved, the Committee wish to point out that their effect is to continue for a year powers granted originally by the Patents and Designs Act, 1942, for the war period. These powers were continued by two Acts of Parliament until December, 1950, and have since been continued seven times by Order in Council for twelve months each time."
Surely the Government have had ample opportunity to make up their minds. The Committee, I would point out, made similar Reports in 1954, in 1955 and in 1956. With this Report, that makes four altogether. I wonder how many more they will be making. I hope that when the time comes—as I am sure it will—when we may be coming to this House and making a plea that certain legislation, certain regulations, are required, the noble and learned Viscount will be as charitable to us as we are to him and will give us such legislation in a more understanding way than it was given to us in the days of the former Labour Government.
3.14 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I should like to make two very short points. The first is this. I think that none of

389
your Lordships, on either side of the House, would dispute the proposition that these Emergency Regulations (though I fully agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that they are necessary at this moment) are in disaccord with the principles of British democratic Parliamentary government in time of peace. Certainly, those of us who are old, like myself, and who were Members either of your Lordships' House or of another place before the 1914 war, would have been astonished to learn that any Government could govern the country through Regulations of this kind twelve years after war is over. The answer is, I admit, a simple one. We are, unfortunately, living in a time of emergency, when for various reasons. into which I need not go, we may at any time be plunged into a position of appalling danger. It is therefore necessary for the Government to have some of these Regulations. One of the most pleasant features of your Lordships' House, if I, as a comparatively new Member, may say so, is a sense of fairness. Being, I hope, imbued with that sense of fairness myself. I must say tint I have some sympathy with the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, in what he has just been saying, because it is true that when the Government of the Labour Party were in power we constantly attacked them, both in another place and in this; House, for not removing these Regulations.
The only other point I wish to make is one of which the Lord Chancellor, no doubt, is fully aware. What I am about to say is not intended to be a reflection on noble Lords opposite. I think that those noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, and probably those who sit on the Cross Benches as well, would agree that there would be a considerable danger in leaving a number of these Regulations at the end of this Parliament, because if Her Majesty's Government were composed of people of a more extreme hue than either the last Labour Government or Her Majesty's present Government, either on the Right or the Left, these Regulations could be used with very great detriment to the interests of the country. That is really the danger of these Regulations. I very much hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to announce next year that he has cut down the list to a very considerable extent.
3.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful for the speeches of the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I would not for a moment deny the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, his annual tu quoque on this subject: it is a very legitimate and fair debating point. But I think it would be even fairer if he were to remember two things. The first is that when I started on the reduction of these Regulations there were 215 primary Regulations or, deducting the twenty-five which are ancillary, 190 substantive Regulations. The number has now been reduced to 17. That is not all. For every Regulation there are a great many orders—the order is the child of the Regulation; the grandchild of the Statute. Literally hundreds of these have been wiped away in the last six years. That is the first point. The second point is that it is fair to recall that when the Labour Government had built in these Regulations and orders so as to become part of the machinery of government which they favoured, and when they built them in not only for the war period but for six years afterwards, it is difficult to carry on without dealing gradually with some of these matters—
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, in the interest of accuracy? Is it not correct to say that the Labour Government were constantly reducing the number of Regulations?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Labour Government were reducing the number, but without some research I should not like to commit myself to the adverb "constantly". Reductions had been brought about, but there were still left, as I say, 215 Regulations, and hundreds, if not thousands, of orders which we have since cleared off the Book.
But there is another point, which was implicit, if he will allow an old friend to say so, in the very fair and wise remarks of my noble friend Lord Winterton. That is, that during every war and the succeeding period great changes take place in the country, in the Services, and in the scientific progress of the land; and some matters that were dealt with by this procedure during the war have got to be maintained because of the changes in the national scene. But,

391
if your Lordships will allow me to say so, it is wrong for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to suggest that the permanent legislation replaces the war-time powers. In every case the permanent legislation reduces the war-time powers to the absolute minimum required by the new model Navy, Army and Air Force which we have to operate to-day, and I hope the noble Lord will find that that minimising process has been continued when he sees the legislation of which I have spoken. May I give him two examples? He has quoted Regulation No. 55 in the narrower process it has to-day, but he did not refer your Lordships to Regulation 55 in the wide form in which it existed when his Party were in office. Then it had an infinitely wider purview. It reminds me of the old jingle in my own country with regard to the first roads:
"If you had seen these roads before they were made,
You would hold up your hands and bless General Wade."
If he would recall Regulation 55 before we began to cut it down, I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, might turn a brief blessing in my direction.
I should also like to assure the noble Lord that when one comes to Regulation No. 51, which at the moment allows various Departments to walk on to land, and take it without a "by your leave", or anything else, that is not the sort of thing we have in mind for permanent legislation. With regard to patents and designs, I have told the noble Lord that I hope that a Bill will be introduced shortly which again I hope your Lordships will think provides the minimum essential. I began by saying that I would not for a moment deprive the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of this annual elongation of one of my nether limbs—a perfectly proper piece of Parliamentary procedure. and no one could do it in a more kindly way than the noble Lord—but I want to say that I value immensely the support I have had from every quarter of the House and the reassurance which I have received again to-day with such firmness that we want to get rid of these Regulations.
I promised last year that I would do my utmost to be able to say on this occasion that I would deal with the land Regulations. I have sought to do that,
392
and your Lordships will see the result shortly. I can only assure your Lordships that I will make every effort to get rid of these Regulations and to satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, from both the Constitutional and the political points of view. I hope that, with these words, your Lordships will allow the Motion to go through for this year.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I said that if your Lordships allowed me to make one general speech, I could move the other Motions formally, and accordingly I beg to move that the next Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

  SCHEDULE
  The following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations. 1939, namely:—

  Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces);

  Regulations eighty-three and eighty-five (Obstruction, and entry upon, and inspection of land);

  Regulations ninety-two, ninety-three, ninety-eight, ninety-nine B, one hundred to one hundred and two, and one hundred and five (Legal and supplementary provisions).

  Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.

  Regulation one and paragraph (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.
  —(The Lord Chancellor.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the next Motion be agreed to.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947. extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940. relating to wheat and land drainage. and would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven) be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PATENTS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I beg to move that the next Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section forty-nine of the Patents Act, 1949, praying that the Patents (Extension of Period Emergency) Order, 1957. be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th November.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

REGISTERED DESIGNS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the next Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subparagraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act, 1949, praying that the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th November.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1957
3.26 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM rose to move, That the draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these draft Regulations which I am moving this afternoon in place of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who is unfortunately ill, have been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, to give effect to recommendations made to him by the National Assistance Board. Their purpose is to make further increases, as from January 27 next, in the weekly sums to be allowed for the requirements, other than rent, of persons in need of National Assistance. If the draft Regulations are approved by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, my right honourable friend will then make substantive Regulations in the form of the Draft.
Your Lordships will know that it is the duty of the officers of the Board to determine whether a person is in need of assistance, and, if so, how much. The weekly sums on which they base their decisions are set out in the Draft Regulations in two scales—the ordinary scale and a special scale for the blind and for certain persons suffering from tuberculosis. To the sums provided by these scales an allowance is added for rent. The increases proposed are 9s. for a married couple and 5s. for a single householder, with suitable increases for other categories of applicants and for dependants. These increases of 9s. and 5s. will bring the rates for a married couple and for a single householder to 76s. and 45s. on the ordinary scale and to 96s. and 65s. on the special scale.
As the Board have explained in their Memorandum accompanying the Draft Regulations, in making these proposals they have taken into account not only changes in prices but also the effect on some pensioners receiving supplementary assistance of the Government's proposal for withdrawing the tobacco duty concession. The Board inform me that they are satisfied that even for those who will lose their tobacco tokens the new rates of

395
assistance will do more than maintain the value of the rates provided by the Regulations adopted for the start of National Assistance in 1948.
Some of your Lordships may not be fully aware of the provision of an allowance, over and above the normal scale, for rent, and I think it would be as well for me to explain that the Board have ample powers to meet any increase in the rent of a person who is receiving assistance. Your Lordships may be interested to know that as regards controlled rents the Board's policy is to meet an applicant's rent in full unless the accommodation is being shared by someone not dependent on assistance or the rent is plainly excessive. For instance, if a married couple living alone are paying a rent of 15s. a week, their needs will be assessed, as from January 27 next, at £4 11s. a week at least. The significance of the words I used, "at least", is that if the couple have special needs arising, say, from sickness or infirmity, the allowance may be still further increased, because the increases now proposed do not affect in any way the general discretionary power of the Board's officers to adjust an allowance to meet special circumstances. This discretionary power is a most valuable and important feature of the service of assistance, and a great deal of use is made of it. In fact, two out of every five allowances being paid contain an addition to the normal assessment for such things as extra nourishment, domestic help and laundry charges. At the end of last year the cost of these special additions alone was running at a rate of something over £11 million a year.
On the basis of the number of allowances now being paid the increases proposed are estimated to cost about £26 million in a full year. On the other hand, if the legislation providing for increases in retirement pensions and other insurance benefits is passed into law and increases are made in war pension payments as is proposed, these increases will be taken into account against National Assistance supplements and this must mean a substantial saving in that respect.
Your Lordships may wish to know, too, why it is that these increases, if approved, are to be paid from January 27. The reason is that this is the date
396
on which the proposed increases in pensions will be paid, and it is plainly the sensible course to bring all these increases into effect on the same date, so that everyone will then get some benefit. In effecting this the Board's officers will be faced with a very heavy task, because between now and January 27 they will have to review and re-assess over 1,600,000 cases.
The purpose of the Regulations I am now putting before your Lordships is this. It has always been a part of policy to provide a safety net through which the casualties of life cannot fall, in the shape of a minimum subsistence allowance. To-day we are concerned with the raising and the strengthening of that net by the increases that I have detailed to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise not for the purpose of opposing these Regulations but to make one or two observations in regard to them. The first is this. No one would suggest for a single moment that 76s. a week for a husband and wife who are deemed to be destitute and to have no means of their own is a living remuneration; it is merely accentuating destitution. It is, nevertheless, an increase upon the present rate. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us when the rate was last fixed. I think he said that it represents a few shillings a week increase on the last rate. Does it do any more than merely make up for the increase in the cost of living as compared with the time when the previous rate was fixed? My impression is that it does not do more than that. In fact, the person who is destitute and in need of money will be no better off on January 27 than he was when the previous rate was fixed; although I agree that in the meantime he has been suffering hardship because the cost of living has gradually gone up since the rate was last fixed. Does it do more than that? Is it intended to do more?
The other thing is that the rate, when it is fixed, will be rather less than the amounts it is intended to pay for retirement pensions. The rate for a husband

397
and wife is 76s. and for a single person 45s., whereas I understand that the retirement rates are to be 80s. and 50s. respectively. Therefore the destitute person, with presumably greater need, will be getting rather less to live on than the person who is getting a retirement allowance. Furthermore, for a person to qualify for a destitution allowance he or she must have no other means, whereas when the retirement allowances are paid they will be, after a certain age, irrespective of need. It is true that if a man claims the retirement allowance at the age of 65 (or 60 in the case of a woman) there is a limit to the income they may earn, and deductions are made in respect of any income over that figure. People who are on National Assistance are deemed not to be in possession of any income at all, yet their allowance is to be rather less than the amount of the retirement pension Would it not have been proper to increase the National Assistance allowance to the same figure as that which is to be given in respect of retirement allowance?
Subject to those comments, we are all glad of any increase in the rate of National Assistance. One wonders how people are going to live to-day on 76s. a week, on the assumption that they get no extra payment for rent. I think the noble Lord explained that in two out of five cases they do get sonic supplementation to these figures, but that means that three out of five do not; and, as I say, one wonders how they can possibly make ends meet, if they have no other means at all.
3.36 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am not going to take up the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the comparison of retirement pensions; I do not suppose my noble friend Lord Chesham will have any difficulty in dealing with that. However, I should like to say that when regulations like these National Assistance Regulations are laid before the House, it would be a great help to your Lordships if, before we came to consider them, we had laid before us a list of recent retail prices by which we could judge them. Those of us who were engaged in this matter a few years ago could reasonably carry the scales in our head, but 'not dealing with it for a year or two one is unable to follow them so well. As your
398
Lordships are all expected to have a conscious mind and opinion upon these Regulations, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great convenience if we could have something of the kind before us on future occasions when we come to consider these Regulations.
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, particularly asked me what was the position in regard to this increase. I can only tell him that the previous rate was fixed in December, 1955. The intention of this rise (if I may so call it) is to tighten, to strengthen, to lift up a little, the safety net to which I have referred. I have already said that the National Assistance Board have informed me that they take the view that what they are recommending, and what my right honourable friend is proposing to carry out, does more than maintain the original 1948 rate. Evidently in 1948 that rate was considered to be adequate, and the Board have based their recommendations in that way. As a straight answer to the noble Lord, I would say that these increases are not intended to be a bonus payment as it were; they are intended to keep the minimum up to what it should be.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to argue the point, and I was not really expressing my own opinion on it. I was merely asking whether the increase does, in fact, make up for the increase in the cost of living since the last rate was fixed in 1955.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords that has been taken into consideration. The Board consider that it makes up for that, and puts the position on a slightly better basis than it was in 1948.
LORD SILKIN: I was inquiring about since the last payment was fixed. The noble Lord explained that that was in 1955.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is to make up for the increase in the cost of living since 1955. The noble Lord also asked about the difference in level between the National Assistance rates and the benefit rates. There I must say that the level on which benefits can be paid under a contributory insurance scheme is not to be compared in any way with the question of the level of assistance which

399
is needed at any given time. If, because of price changes, the rates of assistance currently payable are, in the Board's view, failing to provide a reasonable and adequate subsistence, it is the Board's duty to propose such increases as they think fit, whether the benefit rates are going up concurrently or not.
Since 1946, apart from this increase, pensions have gone up three times, whereas the assistance rates have gone up six times, which includes, of course, the original increase in the rate in 1948—otherwise, five times since 1948. I think it is a misconception to confuse the relationship between assistance and benefits under the pensions schemes. This is the basic floor to stop anyone becoming any worse off. It is being a little improved to meet the cost of living. That is the position, and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he promise to take into account what I have just said the next time such Regulations are put before us?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I will, of course, do that.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could the noble Lord clear up one point? I may be rather stupid in not understanding what was the right answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to whether this 76s. for a married couple is in addition to a rent allowance, whereas the contributory pension is 80s., with no rent addition.
LORD CHESHAM: The position the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has asked about is, I think, clear. It is 76s., and the allowance for rent is on top of that.
LORD SILKIN: But the allowance given for rent is not the actual amount of the rent paid, but the excess of rent over the controlled rent, is it not?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I have said before, it is the Board's policy to allow the full rent in the case of controlled rents, and thereafter to look at the matter under the ample powers they have for discretionary increases over the scale laid down.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order, which is in the usual form, be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Pontypridd, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order also be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Thame, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order also be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Blyth, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Consolidation Bill which will be referred to the Joint Committee on such Bills. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before four o'clock.