Lords Sitting of 9 December 1958

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

STRENGTH OF FLEET IN 1961
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a statement can be made showing what the total strength of the Fleet will be in 1961, in the various classes, distinguishing between ships that are operational and ships in reserve.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, it is not the practice to give details of the size of the Armed Forces for periods two or three years ahead. I have, however, given as much detailed information as I can in my Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates, with which I am sure the noble Earl is familiar. I would also draw his attention to paragraphs 44 to 51 of this year's Defence White Paper, which outlined the tasks of the Royal Navy and the broad areas where ships will be maintained in order to fulfil them. I can assure the noble Earl that we intend to maintain a Fleet which will fulfil these tasks. We will also maintain in Reserve sufficient ships to keep the Active Fleet fully up to strength.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl very much indeed for his Answer, may I ask him whether he would dissent from the statement that in 1961 the operational Fleet will consist of three carriers and three cruisers, so far as important ships are concerned?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, so far as that is concerned, that statement has been made already in the White Paper and I do not think it requires my assent or dissent.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does the First Lord really think that that is adequate for the needs of the Royal Navy, even in peace time, with all the contingencies which constantly arise?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, that is a subject we have debated in the past and I have no doubt we shall debate again in the future. I do not think that at the present time I need to add very much to what I have said before.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the House and the public are entitled to know whether the Board of Admiralty really consider that to be sufficient. We need the minimum for security and for general policing duties.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount must put down a specific Question if he wants that answered. I really cannot add to what I have said already on a matter which is really one for debate and not simply a question of fact.

OFFICERS' AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS
2.39 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: 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 what action they propose to take on the question of officers' and widows' pensions, in view of the expression of the opinion of this House on the 13th of November.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I take it the noble Lord's Question is directed particularly to those who are already drawing pensions. As regards officers in this category the Government must adhere to the position I explained on the 13th November, namely, that they do not see how special treatment could be justified. As was, however, stated by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Defence, in another place on the 24th November, the Government are going into the whole matter of Service widows' pensions to see whether there are any valid grounds on which we could

83
reasonably justify making a differentiation in favour of this category of pensioner.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether it is to be understood that Her Majesty's Government disregard the opinion constitutionally expressed by your Lordships' House.
EARL WOOLTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I wonder whether he could help the House by letting us know what would be the cost to Her Majesty's Treasury if they fulfilled the desires expressed in this House?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, was given in the Grigg Report and I gave those figures when we held the debate on this subject.
EARL WOOLTON: I apologise to the noble Earl for not remembering the figures. I wonder whether he could tell us again?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is rather outside this Question and my memory is extremely fallible, but I remember something of the order of £50 million a year. With regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, made, I would say that of course we do not disregard anything said in this House. But the Government cannot act on every expression of opinion.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I understood the noble Earl correctly, he did not state that the question of officers' pensions was being looked at again. If that is so, what was the offer he made to my noble friend, Lord Jeffreys, in the debate? When I asked that question in the debate, he was apparently unable to answer.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I made an offer to the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and the noble Lord declined it.
LORD DERWENT: My question is, what was the offer? Could the noble Earl tell me what it was?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a little outside the Question. I do not know that the offer is relevant at the present time. The offer I made was to see whether any differentiation could be
84
made, if the noble Lord thought it could. As he did not accept that offer I presume he did not think it could.

DISPOSAL OF HERR KRUPP'S ASSETS
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 (1) whether they are aware that in April of this year Herr Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach came out publicly against the Allied order to de-concentrate his concern; (2) whether the Federal Government agreed legally to enforce the 1953 deconcentration agreement; (3) whether since July further discussions have taken place with the Federal Government on the subject, and, if so, what is their nature; and (4) whether they can give an assurance that their policy is directed to ensuring that Herr Krupp shall not be released from any of his undertakings under the 1953 agreement.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the Answer to the first and second parts of the noble Viscount's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the third and fourth parts of the Question, discussions have been continuing with the French and United States Government and with the Federal Government, but until decisions are reached I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, but may I ask him whether Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, when Minister of State, said in the House of Commons on March 4, 1953:
"The Federal Government will continue to give effect to Allied High Commission Law No. 27, until the whole deconcentration programme for the West German iron and steel industry is completed."
But is it not widely known that, in the words of The Times of May 1, 1958,
"… there can be little doubt that the Federal Government is still loth to carry out the responsibilities it undertook as regards the deconcentration of Herr Krupp's assets when sovereignty was conferred."

85
May I ask the noble Marquess this question? Is he aware that this employer of slave labour's activities—using assets which have not been deconcentrated as they should have been by this date—is reaching to all corners of the world, in an effort to obtain a dominating world economic position for Germany at our, and other countries', expense?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of all the facts concerned in this case, and I must ask the noble Viscount to accept what I said in my original reply. I fully appreciate that the noble Viscount is perfectly entitled to revert to this question as often as he wishes, but this is the seventh time in twelve months that the question has been raised and, so far as I am aware, almost every single aspect of it has been answered most thoroughly by the Government. I must ask the noble Viscount to accept what I said in my original reply.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for what he has said.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the noble Viscount has referred to this matter on previous occasions and, in view of that, whether he would think it possible to give a little wider description of the principle pursued by Her Majesty's Government rather than the limitations which still seem to be surrounding this matter from time to time whenever the noble Viscount rises to ask the question?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Marquess give all the rest of us who are more than mildly interested just a plain answer? Is the Federal Government carrying out the deconcentration agreement? Is it carrying it out, or has it carried it out?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the deconcentration agreement is being carried out, and we have repeatedly in the past given answers to this question as to the extent to which it has been carried out. It is perfectly correct
86
that all the assets of Herr Krupp have not yet been disposed of.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, would it not be more correct to say that the deconcentration agreement is being carried out in part, and only in part, and at a very slow rate at that?

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1958, other than the provisions thereof relating to the Overseas Food Corporation. My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I reminded your Lordships that this Bill has not be reprinted since the last time upon which it was in Committee.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS)THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS) moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Dangerous occurrences in connection with licensed sites
".—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect on the happening on, or in connection with the use of, any licensed site

87
of an occurrence of any such class or description as may be prescribed.
(2) The licensee shall cause the occurrence to be reported forthwith in the prescribed manner to the Minister, and if the occurrence is not so reported the licensee shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of a first offence under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.

(3) The Minister may at any time direct an inspector to make a special report with respect to the occurrence, and the Minister may cause any such report, or so much thereof as in his opinion it is consistent with the interests of national security to disclose, to be made public at such time and in such manner as he thinks fit.
(4) The Minister may, where he thinks it expedient so to do, direct an inquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act into the occurrence and its causes, circumstances and effects; and any such inquiry shall be held in public except where or to the extent that it appears to the Minister expedient in the interests of national security to direct otherwise.
(5) The Minister may by order make provision for enabling such particulars of any person shown to have been within such area during such period (being the period during which the occurrence took place) as may be specified in the order to be registered by or on behalf of that person in such manner as may be so specified, and any such registration in respect of any person shall be sufficient evidence of his presence within that area during that period unless the contrary is proved; and any such order shall be made by statutory instrument and be laid before Parliament after being made.
(6) Where, by reason of the gravity of the occurrence or having regard to any previous occurrences on, or in connection with the use of, the site which have resulted or may result in claims such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section four of this Act, the Minister thinks it proper so to do, he shall by notice in writing to the licensee direct that a new cover period for the purposes of the said subsection (1) shall begin in respect of that site on such date not earlier than two months after the date of the service of the notice as may be specified therein.
(7) Where, in the case of an occurrence in Scotland which causes the death of any person, the Minister directs an inquiry to be held into the occurrence under subsection (4) of this section, no inquiry with regard to that death shall, unless the Lord Advocate otherwise directs, be held in pursuance of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act. 1895."
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will remember, when we were
88
considering this Bill on the last occasion it was arranged that it should be committed to your Lordships' House in order that the Amendment which had been put down to Clause 5, at page 8, line 4, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Granville-West and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, might be debated separately. In accordance with this arrangement, I therefore beg to move the inclusion in the Bill of this clause, which is the same as Clause 5 in its original form, in order that noble Lords opposite may move their Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) Where a person has so registered as is provided in the preceding subsection or not having so registered establishes his presence within the area and during the period referred to in the preceding subsection and such person has suffered hurt or damage to property of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act then such person shall be deemed to have suffered such hurt or damage in consequence of such ionising radiations aforesaid unless the contrary is proved."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment to the Amendment I should like to reserve the position of my noble friends on the clauses which have just been passed. We have let them go to-day because we did not wish to debate them afresh; but in fact on quite a number of them we have expressed our dissatisfaction and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has given undertakings that he will reconsider certain provisions of them. We are quite prepared to accept those undertakings, and we are to have the benefit of possible discussions off the record. It is subject to those undertakings—it must not be deemed otherwise—that we have allowed these clauses to go through without opposition. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is under no misapprehension and appreciates that we are not satisfied with these clauses as they stand.
I now want to turn to the Amendment which I am moving. I think it is a simple one, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will find himself, in principle, able to accept it. The point is just this: that where an incident has occurred and an individual can establish that he was

89
present at the time, and can also establish—and I want to use very broad language—that the injury from which he is suffering is due to the effects of that incident, then he should be entitled to be compensated without any further proof on his part, unless the licensee can controvert that evidence.
Even under the Bill as it stands, a person who has been injured will be in a position to make a claim within ten years from the date of the incident. We on this side very much hope that that period may be extended indefinitely and that there will be no limit to the time within which a person can make a claim. I believe that we had considerable support for that proposal from the Government side of the House, and I greatly hope that the noble Lord the Minister will see his way to meet us on this matter. But even accepting ten years as the period during which a claim must be made, an injured person will be put in a hopeless position in having to establish a claim if the injury manifests itself, say, at the end of eight or nine years after the occurrence, if he has to prove that his injury is, in fact, due to the particular occurrence. It is true that he may be able to establish that he was present, but he may find it impossible to overcome the difficulty of establishing cause and effect between his own injury and the occurrence.
I want to draw your Lordships attention to subsection (3) of the new clause under discussion. It says that, where an occurrence does take place:
"The Minister may at any time direct an inspector to make a special report with respect to the occurrence, and the Minister may cause any such report, or so much thereof as in his opinion it is consistent with the interests of national security to disclose, to be made public at such time and in such manner as he thinks fit."
If such a report is made public it may go some way towards helping the injured individual to establish his claim. But what happens if that report is not made public? I imagine that there will be a number of cases where it may not be in the public interest to disclose that report, and the position will then be that the injured person will have no information and no evidence upon which he can establish his claim, while the licensee will have all the benefits of the result of that inquiry and will be able to controvert him.
Again, subsection (4) of the new clause deals with the same point. It says:
90
"The Minister may, where he thinks it expedient so to do, direct an inquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act into the occurrence and its causes, circumstances and effects; and any such inquiry shall be held in public except where or to the extent that it appears to the Minister expedient in the interests of national security to direct otherwise."
So that we may get this state of affairs. An occurrence takes place and after, perhaps, eight, nine or conceivably many more years, if the period is extended, a man may find that he is suffering injuries which are consistent with the effects of an occurrence. He can establish that he was there but can prove nothing else, because, although there has been an inquiry into the incident, that inquiry has been held in private and in the interests of national security the report has not been published. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to put the injured person in the position that once he proves that he was present and that he is suffering from injuries consistent with what would be the result of an occurrence—and I hope I shall not be pressed too hard upon those words because if the noble Lord the Minister agrees the principle he can no doubt clarify the point—it should be for the licensee to prove the contrary; and if the contrary is not proved then the injured person has made out his case.
I know that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who is listening carefully, as always, will follow the point I am trying to make. It is merely that we should shift the onus of proof from the injured person—who is going to find it exceedingly difficult to establish a case, especially in the circumstances I have mentioned, and if the injury takes place after many years—on to the licensee, who will have at his disposal all the evidence and will be in a much better position to discharge the onus. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
After subsection (5) insert—
("(6) Where a person has so registered as is provided in the preceding subsection or not having so registered establishes his presence within the area and during the period referred to in the preceding subsection and such person has suffered hurt or damage to property of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act then such person shall be deemed to have suffered such hurt

91
or damage in consequence of such ionising radiations aforesaid unless the contrary is proved.")—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MILLS: I understand the effect of this Amendment to the Amendment, which, as Lord Silkin says, is to shift the onus of proof, and I recognise that there are still uncertainties about the nature of nuclear risks. Considering the scale upon which radio-active materials will be handled by the nuclear power industry, the Bill already makes several concessions to those who may sustain radio-active injury or damage. They will not have to prove that a licensee has been negligent. If they register, then the burden of proving that they were not present in the area will fall upon the licensee; and they will no longer have to present their claims within three years, as is the case under existing law.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised the question of the ten-year period and, as he says, I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that question unofficially before we come to the Report stage. But if this Amendment to the Amendment were accepted, the courts would be bound, as a matter of course, to award damages to any person who proved that he was persent in the area at the time of the occurrence and developed symptoms of radio-active injury—unless, of course, the licensee could show that the injury was due to something else. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants to see established.
Such a position would surely constitute a serious encroachment upon the fundamental principle that, before damages can be awarded to one person against another, the claimant must satisfy the court of the validity of the claim; and I foresee that unless we reaffirm that common principle, the system laid down under this Bill could be abused and advantage could easily be taken of it. With every sympathy in this matter, I do not think it is possible for me to accept this reversal of the ordinary procedures of law. Therefore, I am sorry that I cannot accept the proposed Amendment to the Amendment.
3.0 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I am sure that the whole Committee will be very disappointed at the reply of the Minister to this Amendment. He has conceded at once that there are great dangers regarding nuclear risks. Even if
92
we are embarking upon acquiring a full knowledge of this subject, as yet there remain many elements unknown. The Government under this Bill are attempting to make provision to meet a possible contingency which might arise from the introduction into industry of nuclear energy. It is not a new principle. This is a case, in my respectful submission, where the Government should recognise that, with the uncertainties in this position, special provision should be made for those who might be injured by the ionising radiation. There was a position under the Pneumoconiosis Act and Regulations where there was a presumption that anyone who suffered pneumoconiosis was presumed to have obtained it in the course of his employment unless the contrary was proved by the employer. Therefore this is no new principle, and in this special circumstance it seems to me that this principle should be applied to this particular case.
When one considers Clause 5 as it stands one finds many uncertainties in it which give rise to considerable disquiet. In the first place, subsection (1) refers to:
"… any licensed site of an occurrence of any such class or description as may be prescribed"—
that is, prescribed by regulation. Before we can thoroughly understand what the effect of the clause is going to be we surely should have some idea of what the Government have in mind when using the term "class or description", otherwise we are completely in the dark in understanding what the effect of the clause will be. It is true that Clause 5 refers only to dangerous occurrences. In the 1957 Report of the Factories Inspector it is stated there have been dangerous occurrences in other industries; I believe that something in the region of 1,200 dangerous occurrences occurred in private industry last year. Under this clause and under these provisions, we are dealing with a new industry where further dangerous occurrences will take place.
It is clear that the uncertainties of proof, particularly having regard to the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made in his most eloquent appeal to the House, as a result of which the Minister is considering the period of time within which the claims should be made, cast upon the private citizen a great burden. Therefore it is, in my submission,

93
the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the private citizen is protected against these risks which the Minister agrees are so uncertain at the present time.
Again, under subsection (5), where these dangerous occurrences happen, the Minister, at the time of the occurrence or shortly afterwards, I take it:
"may by order make provision for enabling such particulars of any person shown to have been within such area during such period (being the period during which the occurrence took place) as may be specified in the order to be registered by or on behalf of that person in such manner as may be so specified.…"
The difficulty about understanding this clause is that it is not quite clear whether, when the Minister makes his order, the particulars which have to be registered are to be of those persons who have already shown that they have been within the area. And then, of course, it is uncertain what "the area" means. Is it to be within the curtilage of the factory, the licensed premises, or what is "the area"? I think that the Committee should know something of what is in the Government's mind as regards this matter.
It seems that there are here many reasons why the principle which has been recognised in law on other occasions should be applied to this particular case. This Bill should be for the protection of the members of the public and not for the protection of the industrialist who undertakes nuclear development. The industrialist, of course, is entitled to all the help and assistance it is possible to give. He is having that from the Atomic Energy Authority; and I have taken the view (and I make no apology for repeating it), that in the circumstances it would be eminently desirable that the Atomic Energy Authority should be part of every consortium which is set up for the development of nuclear energy, so that whoever is injured by ionising radiation knows at once that he has one authority upon whom he can claim. Suppose there are several industries in close proximity where some ionising radiations have taken place: what is the area in which third parties are covered and against whom are they to bring their actions? How can they prove it was the radiation from one particular factory as against another? All sorts of difficulties arise here which, in my respectful view, should be provided for in the Bill; and I think that the only way in which they can be
94
so provided for is under the Amendment which my noble friend has moved.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sorry indeed that the Minister has not seen fit to accept this Amendment to the Amendment, because I rather thought, from an attitude which I believed he was developing on the last occasion we had this Bill before us, that he had realised the grave implications of this Bill. I beg the Committee to realise that hidden in this Bill, which is highly technical and very legal in its form, there are wide dangers—I think we could say measureless dangers—at the present time to every citizen, which nobody can possibly know very much about in the present stage of our knowledge.
This Bill does a very serious thing. It removes the protection which the citizen now has under the law, the Atomic Energy Authority Act and other Acts associated with it; and it narrows down the rights of the citizen to redress against the licensee in such a mariner that, as my noble friend pointed out to me, all the risks of uncertainty are loaded upon the damaged citizen instead of upon the licensee, or upon the community as a whole, who are making these risks widespread. This is a very serious thing. I should be very interested to know whether I am right in believing that the Atomic Energy Authority Act does, in fact, protect the citizen to a much wider degree than he will be protected under this Bill. An answer on that point would be, I think, extremely illuminating and helpful to us all when we come to the next stage of the Bill.
In the somewhat confusing circumstances of the adjournment of the House in the Committee stage on the last occasion I was under the impression that we still had to consider Clause 4 afresh. Apparently I was wrong. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I point out that under Clause 4, which apparently has been passed by the Committee, there still remains this most curious and, as I think, dangerous provision. It is briefly set out in the Explanatory Memorandum and I cannot improve on the words used there:
"If the Minister considers that the licensee's liability for hurt or damage by radiation from any occurrence is likely to exceed five million pounds, he is required to certify accordingly by statutory instrument; and thereafter no claims in respect of that occurrence are to be dealt with until Parliament so determines."

95
A limit of £5 million is very small, in view of possible risks in a major disaster. Moreover, the time which can, and probably must, elapse before the total amount of liability is ascertainable may be very long.
Take the Windscale disaster, for instance. Have all the claims in respect of that been made? Who can answer that? I read in newspapers sent to me from Cumberland all kinds of suggestions that there are still developing among the livestock of certain farms alarming symptoms which may well give rise to substantial claims. There is evidence that there was pollution of the atmosphere by the Wind-scale disaster pretty well all over the country, and certainly detectable in the vicinity of London. How dangerous that is, nobody knows. At the time of an occurrence it is impossible to define the area within which damage might have occurred, so there is bound to be uncertainty for a long period of time about the amount of total claims. I think that the cost and risk of these vast uncertainties are to be put upon the damaged person and not upon the corporations who have caused the hurt. This seems to me a grave and major injustice, and I trust that your Lordships will resist this clause.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord has referred to Clause 4, but I would point out that I did give the Committee an opportunity of considering Clause 4 this afternoon. I put the Question. That it stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord did not intervene.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am afraid that I was a bit late off the mark.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord's reference to paragraph 6 will be dealt with on Report stage of the Bill. I think it will be more convenient if we limit the debate for the moment to the issue before your Lordships, but I want to assure the noble Lord that his point is not forgotten.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Does the noble and learned Viscount refer to Clause 6 of the Memorandum or to Clause 6 of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that the noble Lord was referring to paragraph 6 of the Memorandum, and that was the point I had in mind. On the general point before us, one has to remember, as my noble friend Lord Mills said, that here we have recognised that it is necessary to give greater rights to the individual. It is not a question of cutting down, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, suggested. We have put the licensee of a reactor in the position of strict liability (if I may use a legal term); that is to say, a person who is making a claim against him need not prove negligence.
I think that my noble friend Lord Silkin knows me well enough to agree that I never have consciously at this Box taken a debating or drafting point on his Amendments. I have always tried to face the reality of the difference between us. And I should like to spend a moment on the Amendment, not in any pettifogging spirit but to see whether there really is the difference between us which noble Lords opposite fear. The Amendment to the Amendment says:
"Where a person has so registered as is provided in the preceding subsection or not having so registered establishes his presence within the area …"
I pause there to say that I take this as a point of substance, and I assume we are agreed that the person should have the onus on him of establishing his presence, either by the convenient method of registration or, if he has failed to register, by establishing his presence by ordinary evidence. We are agreed on that condition. Then the subsection goes on:
"and during the period referred to in the preceding subsection"—
that is the period which at present is ten years and which is going to be a matter of discussion—and again we are agreed so far—
"and such person has suffered hurt or damage to property of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations …"
Again I take it that the noble Lord is not putting too much on the word "presumption". What he really has in mind is, for example, if the person affected has leukæmia, that is likely to have been the result of ionising radiations. I think that the usual word would be "inference", rather than "presumption", but it would be a clear process of thought

97
to proceed from ionising radiations to some condition of the body (I am leaving out damage to property for the moment) likely to have been caused by it.
If the position were established that the plaintiff in such a case established evidence of registration, or of his presence, and also established that he was suffering from a disease likely to have been caused by radio-active exposure, he would be fulfilling the two conditions of the Amendment to the Amendment. At that point, the noble Lord says the onus should pass to the licensee. The point I want to make is this. I should have thought it was reasonable that the person should also have to establish that before the occurrence he was not suffering, as in my example, from leukæmia. That seems to me an entirely necessary part of the logical proof. If the facts were as the noble Lord put them, that the claim arose eight years afterwards, I should have thought that a reasonable point that would have to be discovered was whether, in the intervening period, the person claiming had been in more or less direct contact with other ionising radiations.
In other words, I should envisage in such a case the plaintiff going into the box and saying: "Before this occurrence I was a fit man or at any rate, I did not suffer from leukæmia"—if I may continue with my example. "I was here at the time of this occurrence. After that I suffered from leukæmia". And, if necessary, he would call medical evidence to show that leukæmia was a disease that was likely to result from ionising radiation. As the result of that, it would be perfectly proper and reasonable to ask him: "In the meantime, have you been, for example, in any other country where they have had an occurrence of this kind?"—and that might well happen to-day. That might introduce, perfectly properly (I am not trying to look at it legalistically, but from the common sense point of view), a new factor which had to be considered. On that, with the addition that I have made—if he can say that he has never suffered from this disease before; that he was there at the time of the occurrence, and that he suffered from it subsequently—and I really do not mind about the period of time—then, in my view, if the case were left there, he would win.
LORD SILKIN: Not necessarily.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord says "not necessarily". But I am trying to test it in the way that one does, and I think it is right that I should. At that point, supposing these were the facts proved and that nothing was done to contradict those facts, then I should have said that the inference would be obvious. The point I am making is that I do not think there is a vast difference of approach; there is only a difference as to what is necesary to prove that the injury is a result of the occurrence.
The noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, called attention to the workmen's compensation provisions and pneumoconiosis, with which I used to be very familiar at an earlier stage of my life. The noble Lord will remember that that depends on proof, if proof be necessary, that the person had worked in contact with silica dust, or whatever it was—I do not pretend to carry all the details in my head. If I may drop into legal parlance, as both noble Lords are of my own profession, what we are really doing here is to apply by Statute the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, which is a well-known Common Law rule, that when you bring a dangerous substance on to land you are liable, if that substance escapes, irrespective of negligent conduct. However careful you have been in trying to prevent it from escaping, you brought the dangerous substance on, and you are liable. Ever since that rule was formulated, it has been part of the rule that the liability is for the direct consequences: that is, you had to prove that the injury was the consequence of the escape of the dangerous substance. That seems to me the short point between us here.
I do not think it is unreasonable, if someone comes eight years afterwards, that he should have to prove that he was a healthy man before the accident; that his injury arose after the occurrence, and that it was the result of ionising radiations. That is all we are asking him to prove. As I say, I want to put the point perfectly fairly. He would, I am sure, be asked—noble Lords have acted for defendants as well as plaintiffs: "Have you been in contact with something else?" And I do not think that that is unreasonable. But here, in addition to removing the need to prove negligence, we have already extended the period to ten years, which is four years beyond the limitation period. I cannot see why

99
noble Lords think it unreasonable that there should still remain, in the form that I have said, the necessity of saying that the injury is the result of the occurrence. That is all that we are standing for and, after a careful consideration of the Amendment, I believe that that is the only difference between us.
If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will look at his Amendment to the Amendment, he will see that it goes on to say:
"… of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations …"
The only point that he does not put in—and I was not sure whether this was deliberately left out or not—is that it was due to the ionising radiations arising from this occurrence. That is the only difference between us, and that is the difference which I ask noble Lords to consider is not an unreasonable or inhumane difference to make. That is the way we put it, and I hope noble Lords will at any rate give us the credit for having considered this matter and considered it from a reasonable and not inhumane standpoint.
LORD SILKIN: I have listened carefully to the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount. I would ask him, first, if there is so little between us, why the Government find it so difficult to accept the Amendment to the Amendment, or the principle of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it is a difference in principle, then it is something about which we should divide. I say that it is fair and reasonable to ask the plaintiff to prove that his injury was the result of these radiations.
LORD SILKIN: The difficulty that we find ourselves in is that you are putting a person to a burden of proof which in many cases he is going to find it impossible to discharge. He has to satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, in this case he has not to satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt; he has to satisfy the court that that is the reasonable inference from the facts proved. This is a civil and not a criminal standard of proof.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think there is really anything in that; he must prove
100
to the satisfaction of the court, and if the court has any reasonable doubt, they will give him the benefit of it. In my view, it is putting upon him an impossible burden if, after a lapse of many years—it may be eight, nine or ten years, or if the Bill is amended a claim may possibly be made after that; and we hope the Bill will be so amended, because the effect of an occurrence may arise many years after the occurrence—he has to prove to the satisfaction of the court that his injury is the direct result of this occurrence, then he may be in extreme difficulty. As I have said, he may not even have available the evidence of the inquiry. Once he establishes that he was there, and that he is suffering from one of the injuries which are understood to be the result of radiation, what more can he prove? He says, "I was healthy before."
If that is all that is between us, I make the noble and learned Viscount a present of it, but I am sure he is not standing on that point. I say that at that point, with all the evidence in the possession of the licensee, it should be for the licensee to show that the injury was not caused by the occurrence. After all, if one has to hold a balance between the two, on whom is the greater hardship? Is it on the injured person, or is it on the licensee? I would say quite obviously—and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would agree with me—that the greater hardship in establishing or rebutting the claim would be on the injured person. We want to make quite certain that, if a person is injured in these uncertain conditions, even if it is many years after, he should not be prevented from getting his compensation by the technical difficulty of establishing that this was the direct result. If there is little between us, why not get together and talk it over and see whether we cannot do something about it? Failing that, I am afraid we must ask the House to divide.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would answer a question which still worries me. Is not the position of the prospective claimant worsened by the Bill as against the position as it now is? Take the Windscale accident. That occurred before this Bill was introduced. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the position of claimants against whoever is responsible in law for the Windscale damage is much stronger now than it

101
would have been had this Bill been passed and the Windscale plant operated by a licensee. I should like an answer on that point.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, has touched upon the very purpose of the Bill. As it is, the Atomic Energy Authority is responsible for its own acts under the Atomic Energy Authority Act. But there is no provision for the operation of a reactor by the Generating Board or by a private firm. This Bill is to lay down the conditions under which a reactor can be operated and under which material can be conveyed, and the compensation which anyone suffering injury will receive.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Lord has not answered my question. I wish he would. Is the position of a claimant against the Windscale authority different from the position of a claimant against a licensee were this Bill passed? If it is different, how does it differ?
LORD MILLS: I thought I had made it clear that in respect of Windscale a claim would come under the Atomic Energy Authority Act which does not apply to the operation of a reactor by a private person. I understand exactly what the noble Lord means; but we are laying clown rules which are applicable to the operation, not by the Government but by nationalised bodies and private undertakings, and the limits which are set down in this Bill are considered to be fair and practicable as between the licensee and the public.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. We can only go to the Division Lobby. It is perfectly clear from his answers that this Bill worsens the position of the claimant as against the position as it now stands.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Why does the noble Lord say that? What is he relying upon in the Act which makes him say that? I have not the Act before me, but if he would tell me what he relies upon—
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: We will deal with it next time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Speaking from memory—because I had not noticed this point, and I have not looked at the Act—I thought everyone was required to prove damage. In that case there is no narrowing of the position. If the noble Lord has any specific provision in mind, I will willingly look at it. Has he?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I shall have to communicate with the noble and learned Viscount. I have not got the points here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, because I would have been prepared to deal with them.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: May I put a short point to the noble and learned Viscount? A person who has been within the area of the Windscale disaster removes into an area where the industry has been set up, and a dangerous occurrence occurs in the new industry. Where does the responsibility lie, and from whom does he get compensation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That emphasises the point that I ventured to make; it is the only point between our conflicting views. The claimant could say, "Before such and such a day I was a sound and healthy man"—and his medical evidence will bear that out—"and the onset came after that time." Surely, it is reasonable to know that there was no possible trace of the disease of which he complains before that time. After all, the noble Lord knows that that is a matter which has been discussed over and over again in the field of workmen's compensation.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: But is it not equally reasonable to say that as Parliament is authorising nuclear reactors to be set up by private industry the citizens should be protected against these consequences? That is precisely what we are trying to do.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment to the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Amwell, L.

Rea, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Darwen, L.

Silkin, L.

Addison, V.

Granville-West, L.

Stonham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Taylor, L.

Hall, V.

Latham, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Stansgate, V.

Lawson, L.

Williams, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Airedale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Ammon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Baroness.

Amulree, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Devonport, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Gage, V.

Glendyne, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V.

Glyn, L.

Monsell, V.

Grenfell, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Hampton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L.

Reading, M.

Jeffreys, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Allerton, L.

Leconfield, L.

Albemarle, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Merthyr, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mills, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Blackford, L.

Newall, L.

Dundee, E.

Brocket, L.

Rank, L.

Home, E.

Chesham, L.

Ravensdale of Kedleston, Baroness.

Lonsdale, E.

Conesford, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Powis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Saltoun, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Sandys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Derwent, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Swinton, E.

Digby, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ebury, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Astor, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Erskine, L.

Westwood, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a very short and a simple Bill—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to observe that I did not over-emphasise the simplicity. I shall not need
104
to spend long in expounding its contents, but it would have been idle to pretend, even before the last two minutes and it is still idler now to pretend, that it is uncontroversial. Your Lordships may therefore expect me to state the reasons for the Bill and the issues which it raises. As it concerns one of the rules relating to elections to another place, although I am not for a moment questioning your Lordships' undoubted right to deal with the Bill as seems fit, I shall try to state those reasons as factually and as briefly as possible.
Let me deal first with the existing law. Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which the Bill seeks to repeal, restricts the number of cars that may be used by, or on behalf of, a candidate to take electors to or from the poll at a Parliamentary election—the section does not apply to local government elections. The limit is one car for every 1,500 electors in a county constituency and one for every 2,500 electors in a borough constituency, and all cars so

105
used must be registered with the returning officer and carry a placard indicating that they are so registered. A contravention of these provisions is an illegal practice.
The Act of 1949 was a consolidating measure, and the provisions of Section 88 were first introduced as Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948. That Act was based largely, though not entirely, on the recommendations of the 1944 Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform and also on the recommendations of a Committee on Electoral Law Reform under the Chairmanship of Sir Cecil Carr. This Committee's membership included the chief agents of the main political Parties. The question of restriction on the use of cars by candidates was considered both by the Speaker's Conference and by the Carr Committee. Neither came to a unanimous conclusion.
The Speaker's Conference rejected the idea of such restrictions by fifteen votes to fourteen and the Carr Committee said—I will quote these words—
"not all of us feel able to support a system of limitation which cannot easily be protected from evasion. In any case some of us are not convinced that any restriction on the gratuitous use of conveyances is either needed or desirable, particularly in these days when the motor car has become so common a mode of transport."
That is from paragraph 41 of the Final Report of the Committee. The Government of the day—I am glad to see such distinguished members of the Government of 1948 in front of me—when introducing their Representation of the People Bill in 1948, had, therefore, conclusive evidence before them that the Parties as a whole were not agreed that there should be restrictions on the use of cars by candidates.
Noble Lords on the Opposition Bench, as members of the Government, were responsible for the production of the 1948 Bill and secured its reading for a second time in another place without any such restrictions at all. I think this point is worth a little emphasis, because the Opposition's main argument against repealing the restrictions is that these restrictions are essential to ensure fair play between the parties. Yet when the Labour Government introduced their major electoral measure of 1948, these restrictions were not contained in the Bill; they were put in only at a later
106
stage as a result of pressure from their own Back-Benchers. The clause containing these restrictions was strongly objected to at the time by the then Opposition, but the Government of the day used their majority to carry it through all stages.
Naturally, my Lords, I do not deny for a moment that the Labour Government were within their Parliamentary rights in doing so. I mention the point only because it has been suggested, and it may be suggested to-day, that it is very shocking, if not unprecedented, for Her Majesty's present Government to repeal the restrictions without the agreement of the Labour Party, notwithstanding that we made it quite clear in 1948, as I shall endeavour to do now, that we regard these restrictions as misconceived in principle and unsatisfactory in practice.
Before I develop the reasons for this view I should perhaps say a word about a point that may be in the minds of some noble Lords opposite, namely, the timing of this Bill. It might be said "Granted that Her Majesty's Government consider these restrictions to be wrong, why are they only now repealing them?" I will answer the point. It is, of course, a fact that there has been a Conservative Administration for about seven years now, with increased majorities, but apart from more urgent preoccupations, when we were first returned to power the restrictions had been in operation for only about two and a half years. We realised the undesirability of frequent changes in the electoral law and this seemed to us a matter in which, strongly though we expressed our view about it, we ought to proceed slowly and carefully, and in the light of further experience.
We now have the position that the restrictions have been in force for nine years and for three General Elections—as well, of course, as for numerous by-elections—and there has been ample opportunity to test their efficacy or otherwise. Even so, we did not embark lightly on the repeal of these restrictions. Unlike our predecessors we thought we should first consult the Opposition, and these consultations took place last summer. In view of references which have been made to the recent Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool at which the resolution for the repeal of this section was carried, let me remark that

107
the consultations with the Opposition took place some months before that Conference and well before we knew what resolutions were to be tabled.
The consultations showed that we should not be able to carry Her Majesty's Opposition with us and that they would not revert to the view which had found favour in their minds when they introduced their own Bill in 1948, but would stand by a later view which had been forced upon them by their own Back-Benchers. After the most careful consideration we came to the conclusion that we ought, none the less, to proceed with removing what we sincerely regard as an excrescence on our electoral law. My Lords, these consultations and deliberations made it impossible to introduce the necessary legislation last Session. So if we are to be accused of delaying this legislation until late in the life of this Parliament, it is really an accusation against us for taking time to consider this matter and making an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt to ensure that it could be done by agreement. That is an accusation which I for my part, am quite prepared to accept.
Now as to the main reasons why we think Section 88 should be repealed. These are really all variations of the most important reason. The restrictions in Section 88, if they have any effect at all, make it more difficult for electors to get to the poll. In this respect they are, I think, quite unique in our electoral law. They are certainly not comparable with restrictions on a candidate's expenditure, because the latter restrictions do nothing to prevent or make it more difficult for the elector to cast his vote. Accordingly, unless some special justification can be found for the restrictions in Section 88, they stand self condemned.
Let us look at the alleged justification. It is that the motor car is so exclusively or predominantly the prerequisite of one political Party that its use at Parliamentary elections—although not be it noted, at local government elections—must be restricted to prevent one Party from obtaining a substantial electoral advantage over its opponents. The number of motor cars has increased from just under 2 million in 1948, when these restrictions were first introduced, to nearly 4½ million; and we all know that the number continues to increase so
108
rapidly that there is now the problem of how they are all going to run on our present roads. So we are not considering an article which is rare or the prerogative of a limited class or section of the community. And even if the motor car were a rich man's privilege, he would not suffer from the restrictions as they stand, because, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury pointed out when the Bill of 1948 was before your Lordships' House, Section 88 does not prevent people from using their own cars to go to the poll or taking with them their family, their resident domestic staff or any visitors staying with them overnight. What that section does is to restrict the organised use of cars to take to the poll people who have not cars of their own.
Therefore, even if we accept the argument that Conservative voters as a whole tend to have more cars than Labour voters as a whole, it is by no means a conclusive argument for the restrictions; and, in any event, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place that the Gallup Poll estimates that 19 per cent. of car owners tend to vote Labour compared to 60 per cent. Conservative; and the 19 per cent. would still give an average of about 1,300 Labour cars per constituency. I have fought elections for another place for over twenty years, and the idea of having a half, a quarter or one-fifth of 1,300 cars is something which I have never contemplated in my political life. It comes down to the analogy of selecting a country's Rugby football team—I take that example because it is something universal. There are 50 million people or thereabouts in England. 5 million in Scotland, 2½ million in Wales and 2 million in New Zealand; and certainly when one gets to the 2 million in New Zealand or, as the noble Lord whom I see in front of me would certainly insist, when one gets to the 2½ million in Wales, one can choose just as good a Rugby team from 2 million or 2½ million as from the 50 million in England. Similarly, when we get the position that there is an average of 1,300 cars available for the Labour Party in every constituency, I believe they really have far more than they are ever likely to require.
The next argument is that it is said that Labour is not able to organise the use of cars as well as Conservatives because Labour voters tend to be at work all day.

109
I really cannot believe that every one of the 13¼ million people who voted Conservative at the last General Election belonged to the leisured classes; and if the Opposition are going to say that all the 12,400,000 people who voted Labour were industrial workers, I will take their word for it though it will not be a very good argument for their claim of not being a class Party. In any event, as your Lordships are only too well aware, the polling stations are open for fourteen hours, from seven o'clock in the morning until nine at night, and cars can surely be organised for whatever part of that time is important, especially after 5.30 or 6 p.m. Indeed, the removal of restrictions will enable the maximum use to be made of cars during such time as is available.
Having dealt with these points, I would say, apart from all these considerations do not let us talk in 1958 and, far more, do not let us think, as though the colour on a car in which an elector is conveyed to the poll is going to determine which way he votes. A lift in a car is not an extraordinary act of benevolence in this year of grace. Finally, on this aspect, let us remember—and I say this in consolation to noble Lords on Opposition Benches—that the absence of restrictions on use of cars at local government elections does not appear to have handicapped the Labour Party. And in consolation to my noble friends on other Benches I would say, nor has the presence of the restrictions at Parliamentary elections prevented the Conservative Party from increasing the percentage of votes cast for them and the number of seats won in another place at each successive election.
I submit, therefore, that those who favour the continuance of Section 88 have failed to discharge the burden of proof which must rest on them, having advocated this peculiar (in every sense of the word) interference with the means by which electors may reach the polling station. In view of all this, it is not surprising that these restrictions tend to bring the law into contempt. In fact, they are so difficult to enforce that, as my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said in another place, it is practically impossible to undertake proceedings with any prospect of success unless the party concerned had already made an admission. I would add that a survey of the admittedly few proceedings
110
and convictions which have taken place suggests that the Party who introduced these restrictions do not comply more strictly with them than do their opponents. Noble Lords will find that in the figures given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on November 5 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 594 (No. 7) col. 960]. It is therefore our considered view that these restrictions are completely out of date and irrelevant to their designed object and that they are bad law. They have been given a fair trial and found wanting and should go without delay. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.9 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I am sure we are all greatly indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for a remarkable forensic performance. He has covered up with enormous skill what is in fact, a rather mean little political device. It must have gone very much against the grain, both as lawyer and as a sportsman: as a lawyer because he would naturally like to see justice done, and as a sportsman because I cannot believe that, as a sportsman, he would think it right to alter the rules of a game before the other side had had its innings. That is exactly what has happened.
It is as if one altered the l.b.w. rule against the Australians after Britain had had her innings; or in Rugby football (which would perhaps be more appropriate, considering the 'Varsity match this afternoon), if one suddenly made some person available for the team although he was seven pounds over-weight. That is what is being done. The noble and learned Viscount has not really put up any case for this measure. One gathered that it did not matter who conveyed anybody to the poll. Why were the Conservative Party so keen on it? Why did the Government not accept the proposal that there should be a pool of neutral cars?
Then we have had some wonderful statistics. They reminded me of the danger in statistics and the example which Sir Winston Churchill used to quote regarding the South African war. Your Lordships will remember that one:

111
it turned out that whereas only 25 per cent. of all the people died of enteric, 50 per cent. of teetotallers died from it. There were only two teetotallers and one died! The noble and learned Viscount suggested 1,300 cars. There was no mention of where they were; and the distribution of cars is vital in this matter. The number of cars hardly matters in some constituencies. I used to represent Lime-house. It is a very small constituency, but very crowded, and on polling day there were so many children in the streets that one dared not go in a car at all; one walked. On the other hand, in these widely-extended country areas it becomes an important matter. It is precisely there that we shall not find many Labour cars. It is said as a rule that almost every country house is a Conservative committee room, well provided with cars. It is nonsense to suppose that this measure is not designed in the interests of one particular side.
It was a quite contradictory argument that was put forward by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I could not quite follow him all the time. Apparently the limitation did not work, yet it was very important to change it; it did not have any effect on either side, yet apparently this idea of abolishing it appeals to the Conservative Party and not to the Labour Party. I was reminded, when I listened to all the Lord Chancellor's arguments, of that famous story of the lady who was asked to return a borrowed frying-pan. She said, "I haven't got it; I am using it myself and anyway it has got a hole in it." That is the sort of argument which the noble and learned Viscount put forward. I think that he spoke with his tongue in his cheek.
There has been all this business of having to wait. We have waited all these years since 1951. Year after year they have been watching the experiment. They have been watching it, according to them, and seeing that every time there was an Election a greater proportion of Conservatives went to the poll. And yet they felt they must alter the arrangement. They waited because they wanted to study the position and consult. They knew that there would be no consultation that was worthwhile with the Opposition. They wanted to consult about something which they knew perfectly well was
112
designed solely in the interest of one Party. It has taken a very long time to get anything like equality of the Parties. The suggestion is that this is a wonderful thing because the position was all right before! Years ago it took ages and ages to get the ballot; it took ages and ages to get polling hours straightened out to get any chance whatever for the workers to vote. This is purely a Party stunt.
My noble friend said that the electors were intelligent. Unfortunately they are still very conscientious. They will often arrive in a Tory car and not think it right to vote Labour; and vice versa. But I think they will be intelligent enough to see through this Bill; they are not quite so simple that they will not see through it. They know perfectly well what it is designed for. It is designed to load the dice against the Labour Party at the next Election; and that is what the timing has been for—the next Election.
Personally, I am not sorry about this. I cannot think the great Conservative Party would have introduced this measure, through their Lord Chancellor in this House, by means of a partisan Bill like this, unless there had been a very serious doubt about their position at the next Election. Quite obviously they have to snatch at any chance whatever in order to try to scramble home. Of course, this measure will be carried here. I do not think it will do much good in the country. How much harm it will do to us I cannot say. Undoubtedly in the country constituencies, where there are very few Labour cars and a great many Conservative cars, it will give the Conservative Party a pull. Our object should be to try to equalise matters and have a fair show. I have often noticed how curious it is that the great Conservative Party, which one would think would be full of sportsmen, always like to alter the rules to their advantage before the match.
4.17 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when a Bill is introduced into this House which affects exclusively elections to another place this House does not normally. I think, see fit to debate it at any great length. But it seems to me that, if it is debated at all, some regard should be had to the merits of the measure. I always listen with the greatest attention and enjoyment to the noble Earl who for so long led the Socialist party in this country, and whose experience,

113
brevity and wit always entitle him to a respectful hearing. But, my Lords, he did not at any stage of his speech say one word against the merits of this measure—I repeat, not one word about the merits of the measure.
He had a great deal to say about it, and he scored one point—or it would have been a point, if the contention which he sought to overthrow had ever been made in favour of this measure. He said that it was not very important, or, alternatively, that it was absurd, if it was so important, for it to have been so long delayed. I frankly agree with the view that it is not a very important measure. The question is whether it is a right measure. If it had been an important measure, then, indeed, it would have been very injurious to the reputation of Her Majesty's Government that they had not introduced it much earlier. But it is, in fact, of very little importance. I think we ought to consider its merits, and I hope, if it is to be further debated, that some noble Lords who think this is a bad Bill will explain why it is so wrong to permit in elections for Parliament what is permitted, with their consent and approval, in elections for local government. So far that distinction has not been explained.
I have no idea why Her Majesty's Government thought fit to try to secure the agreement of the Socialist Party to this electoral change. For most of the period of twenty years during which I served in another place I took the view, which Her Majesty's Government apparently still take, that on any question relating to Parliamentary elections agreement between the Parties was desirable. I took that view strongly. That was the view that inspired the modern tradition of seeking to get agreement through a Speaker's Conference. Which Party was it that overthrew that tradition? It was the Socialist Party. The Speaker's Conference to which my noble and learned friend referred did not recommend the change in the law which was made when the Labour Party legislated and which it is now sought to reverse. As he said, they were divided almost equally upon it; and no doubt that was why the Socialist Party, when they introduced their Bill, did not embody this restriction on the use of motor cars. But it was a unanimous recommendation of that Speaker's Conference that university seats
114
should be retained, and that unanimous recommendation was thrown over without any consultation with the other side.
If we are dealing with realities, the idea that in any electoral reform we can ever proceed in future by consent has been thrown away by the Socialist Party in taking that partisan, that mean and foolish step, which is still doing them considerable harm in the country. I admit that I have strong feelings on this point. I was one of the University Members at the time. Some of my friends told me that I and two of my colleagues were the chief reasons for that part of the Bill. Be that as it may, that Speaker's Conference made a unanimous recommendation. On the strength of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference the National Government carried out some legislation before the General Election of 1945, and other matters awaited legislation afterwards; but that recommendation was cast aside. Now the Socialist Party, through their most distinguished leader, a former Prime Minister, attack this Bill for reversing something which was never recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and which was not in the Bill they themselves introduced and for which no rational reason of any sort has yet been given.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord? I realise the argument he is putting forward, but I did not base my remarks on any recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. All major electoral changes, such as doing away with obsolete things like university seats, and previous changes by both Conservative and Liberal Governments, have always been opposed by the other side. The big changes are never made by consent, and I am not putting it forward as a matter of consent. I merely suggest, from my own point of view, that it is purely a partisan question. If the noble Lord thinks that the abolition of the old out-of-date university representation is on a par with that, well and good.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I have always been delighted to yield to the noble Earl if he thinks he has a point, and I am perfectly certain that he thought he had one, however obscure it was to most of us. If the abolition of the university seats, a university franchise which he thinks so contemptible, was really so contemptible and absurd, I wonder why

115
the representatives of his Party who sat on that Speaker's Conference and the representatives of the Liberal Party all agreed that they should be retained. I think that that should be explained.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that at that time there was a National Government relying on what measure of agreement could be got between the Government and our Party? It is obvious that our Party were not going to give way on a principle on which we had stood for years—the abolition of the double representation of the universities.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think that every intervention of the noble Earl makes his case a little worse. If the National Government had wanted to legislate as a Government, of course there would have been no need for a Speaker's Conference at all. The whole purpose of a Speaker's Conference was to enable the Government not simply to legislate or give a view as a Government on a basis of their representation in another place, but to give representatives of all Parties—and the Opposition Parties at that time were slightly over-represented in numbers on the Speaker's Conference—a chance to agree, in order to try to get a view which, if unanimous, could not indeed bind in law but would be treated with respect by future Parliaments. The view has always been held in modern times that in matters affecting the representation of the people it was a good thing to proceed, so far as possible, by agreement. That was the reason for the Speaker's Conference.
It is quite obvious, after the treatment of the last Speaker's Conference by the Socialist Party, that that is something which can never be repeated. I am at a loss to know why the Government thought fit to seek an agreement with the Opposition on this matter. Now the noble Earl, in a passage in his speech which was humorous but may have been intended as serious, said that it was most unfair to alter the rules in the middle of the game before one side had had an Innings. Let us examine that a little. Since the measure imposing this restriction was passed, the Conservatives have won two successive General Elections.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Without the Bill!
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Earl says that they have not had an innings. Presumably, that means that they have not won a General Election. It would have been all right to introduce this measure, provided that the Socialists, who do not like it had first won a General Election! I think that that argument had better be reconsidered.
I agree that the reform dealt with in this Bill is not an important one, but it is undesirable to retain on the Statute Book something that is difficult to enforce and has no logical reason behind it. There are many things I should like the Government to do much more than the little reform carried out in this measure. Perhaps I had better not give a whole list of them, but they are many. Since the Government have introduced this measure, I think it is right that we should consider it on its merits. The merits are overwhelmingly against this restriction which does not apply in elections for local government. The reasons given against the Bill and the arguments used by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, are, I am sure, the best that can be put forward, but they do not bear examination.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the speech we have had from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the advantage we have of the presence here of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as Leader of the Opposition, may I ask this question? The noble Earl condemned the Bill roundly. Could we know whether the Labour Party intend to reintroduce this restriction, if by any chance they are returned at the next Election? I think we are entitled to ask that. We are discussing this measure in the quieter atmosphere of a non-elected Assembly, after the Bill has passed through the heat and fire of another place. We are rather like those who have passed over, discussing the shortcomings of some of those left behind in another place. The noble Viscount is a member of the Shadow Cabinet of the Labour Party, and therefore it is not unfair to ask him, in view of the contention of his Front Bench, if he can tell us here and now whether this restriction will be reintroduced in the event of his Party being returned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should think that even then there are many priorities

117
to be considered, and we should be entitled to examine most carefully the results of the passing of this Bill, which we now regard as quite iniquitous; and if it proved, as we now contend, to be unfair, no doubt the Government of the day would see that the grievance was repaired.
4.31 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I rise for a few moments to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I have fought something like ten elections of one sort and another, and I have never been able to accumulate the number of cars which the restrictions provided by the Act that we are now seeking to amend enabled me to obtain. But I rise to oppose the Second Reading for another much more important reason. I do so on one main ground alone, which in my opinion transcends all others, and which I feel sure every Member of your Lordships' House must in his or her heart know to be true. It is that this Bill, if and when it passes, will unquestionably confer an electoral advantage on the Conservative Party in the forthcoming General Election, in that it will remove the restriction which at present obtains on the number of cars and their use for the conveyance of voters to the poll.
I do not imagine that there will be one of your Lordships who would deny that Tory supporters in the country come for the most part from the better-off members of the community, who want to conserve—hence the term "Conservatives"—such privileges as their better position in life enables them to obtain in what, after all, is still a capitalist country. These better-off members of the community not only have more cars but, what is equally important, more time, more opportunity and more means to enable them to hire the drivers for those cars, or to employ their own employees, if they desire to do so.
I can give a striking instance of that from what happened a good many years ago when there was the free-for-all system in vogue which the Government are now seeking to reintroduce. In (I think) 1910, Mr. Samuel Samuel, who, as your Lordships will know, was one of the founders of the Shell Oil Company and later the Member for Putney, contested the West Division of Leeds. It
118
was then said, and although it is a good many years ago I believe it to be true, that he brought a whole trainload of motor cars, if not two train loads, 200 miles from London to Leeds in a great effort to wrest that seat from the Liberal holder, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, who had held it for a good many years. It is true that it did not have sufficient effect on the hard-headed Yorkshiremen who lived in that division, but Mr. Samuel Samuel went very near to achieving his aim. That same position might conceivably occur again: in greater or lesser degree if there is this free-for-all, a whole trainload of motor cars, or a collection of motor cars, collected from ones' friends or relatives or whatever it may be, without any limit, can be thrown into any constituency in the country and have a most unfair effect on those others, whether they be Liberal or Labour, who are contesting that division.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given us a great number of statistics. I do not propose to go into these. We all know that statistics can be made to prove anything. I should like to point out, however, that what the Government are doing is precisely what the Lord President of the Council, Lord Hailsham (he is not here to-day), condemned as recently as June 8 of this year, when he made a speech at Nottingham in which he criticised what he called the "card-sharpers" in the Conservative Party. He then said:
"The card-sharpers are so terrified of a Labour Government that they would have us alter the rules of the game in order to avoid a Labour Government. They go about … saying that since we have no chance of winning under the existing rules we must rid the rules in order to prevent our being beaten."
The noble Viscount, who is a member of the Cabinet, went on to say:
"Now, the answer to the card-sharpers is that although politics is not a game, like life it must none the less be played honourably if we do not wish to bring public life into absolute contempt."
What greater condemnation could there be of the present action of Her Majesty's Government than those words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham? I venture to submit that this House, with its great traditions, ought to throw out this Bill as being unworthy of Party politics in this country.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor replies, I should like to ask him one question. I do so because my father was a member of the Carr Committee which dealt with electoral reform during the war. I can well remember the many long hours he spent in meetings with the Conservative national agent, and I believe that it was their intention then to produce a Bill which not only would give a degree of equality between the major political Parties but would maintain equality for the smaller political Parties, like our friends who sit beside us here, as well as the Communist Party, the League of Empire Loyalists, who now and again put up candidates, and the Independents, one of whom is now, I believe, considering standing at the Harrow, East by-election. I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships' House and of the country that the laws under which this country elects its Government and its representatives should be equal, so far as is humanly possible, and that there should be no opportunity for privilege or complaint. That is what I believe we had under the Act of 1948.
I must say that I share the feeling of my noble friends on this side of the House—a feeling of great regret that the Government have thought fit, just before a General Election, to produce what I can only call a squalid Bill. I was hoping that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, would have come here this afternoon to give us his views. I was going through the Report of the Third Reading debate in another place, and there a small part of the speech made by the noble Viscount at the Conservative Party Conference at Bournemouth in 1955, on a move to abolish restrictions on cars, was criticised. This is what the noble Viscount said:
"It is—and I cannot emphasise this too strongly—of the greatest consequence to us as a country to ensure the continuance of general competence and respect for election law as something that is above Party."
I think we must all deplore the bringing of election laws into such disrepute. The question which I rose to ask the noble and learned Viscount is this. Would he not agree that, whilst the two main political Parties are closely involved in this change of law, it perhaps hits harder the smaller Parties, and the Independents, who have not the vast organisation of the two main political Parties?
4.40 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds. I have fought a number of elections, and never have my Party in the constituency been able to get anywhere near the prescribed maximum number of cars, although I have noticed that my opponents were always amply supplied with cars. It seems to me that this is a mean, shabby Bill, designed to add some electoral advantage to the Conservative Party, in addition to the other great advantages which they have over the Labour party. The first of those advantages is—
A NOBLE LORD: Popularity.
LORD BURDEN: —that 99 per cent. of the Press of this country are behind the Conservative Party. Secondly, there was a vast fund built up at headquarters in response to the appeals of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton. Then there are the amounts flowing from the legal decision in regard to "Mr. Cube", by which industry is able to spend money in support of Conservative candidates which never appear in Conservative Party Election accounts. The noble and learned Viscount said, as we are aware, that this change was demanded at the Conservative Party Conference. Very good. I believe that there were also vociferous demands at the Conservative Party Conference for reinstituting flogging and hanging. Why not go the whole hog?—or is it that this is a sop for the next Conservative Party Conference on the principle which the present Prime Minister indicated of, "not too swift and not too slow"? That is a quotation, I believe, from a squib of Swinburne at Cambridge, which I will not complete, in view of the delicate ears of your Lordships.
4.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I also have fought a few elections, and I should like to say one word in answer to the last speakers. First, as regards the Press, at the moment some of the biggest circulations support the Socialist Party. The Socialists also have great financial resources, with the trade unions behind them. I believe that laws should be respected. This law is unenforceable and has never been observed. All of us who have fought elections know that both sides have paid little attention to this law.

121
The convictions, such as they have been, have been equally distributed among the supporters of both sides. But this law is not supportable, and has never had universal support. It is because I believe that, if we have laws, they must be enforceable and supported that I back the Government.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if this debate has no other effect it has certainly given me great pleasure in once again being answered by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He has often clone it in the past and, whatever he says, I hope he will believe that I am entirely sincere when I say that it is a joy to hear his argument again.
Of the points that have been raised, perhaps the most serious, and most seriously put, was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He has raised a difficult point about the smaller Parties, because one wants to consider carefully the effect of proliferation of Parties. That is something which I should not like too rashly to go into, in view of various experiences in other places, which I need not again enlarge to-day.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble and learned Viscount was not suggesting that we should have any legislation that would prevent the expression of a particular political view?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not for a moment. I have never suggested that. Everywhere in the world I have always referred with pride to the fact that the Communist Party fight Elections here, and are always soundly beaten and lose their deposit. The longer we continue with that, which shows other people the position of Communism in this country, the better we are off. I hope the noble Lord will not misunderstand me on that point. The other point is whether we should do the opposite of that and create an artificially favourable position for small and splinter Parties. That suggestion I am afraid I should have to consider very far before I came round to expressing my opinion in favour of it. I am sure on the other point—all of us who knew the noble Lord's father will be sure—that he and my old friend, his opposite number at the time, approached this matter in the most public-spirited way.
122
The other point upon which I want to spend a moment or two is the reference to the speech of my noble friend Lord Tenby. It is difficult to take passages out of speeches, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, took the passage which was largely quoted in another place. Like him, I have read all the debates in another place that were readable, and I know the passage he has in mind. I have in front of me the reports of that speech in The Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Manchester Guardian. In the Daily Telegraph it is stated that my noble friend said:
"A strong case could be made out for repealing Section 88. It has been argued with justification that the limitation was unjustified. If it was true that the section was widely ignored, that demanded the closest investigation"—
that is the point which my noble friend Lord Astor made a moment ago—
"but there was substantial reason for restraint, for it was a matter of great controversy and it was one of the highest consequence to ensure that confidence and respect for Election law was above Party, even if it was irksome and irritating."
Then, according to the other report, in the Manchester Guardian, he is quoted as saying:
"He asked that more time should be allowed to show how this experiment of 1949 was going to work out."
It is for your Lordships to form your own views of what he did say, but I thought it only fair to my noble friend that one should have some idea of the tenor of his speech. He was clearly saying that this was a difficult matter and a strong case could be made out; at that time he thought there should be further time for consideration and he was not prepared to take action. That was over three years ago. We have had more time for consideration, and we agree that this, as I said, was not only a bad but an unenforceable law.
My noble friend, Lord Conesford, has dealt with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as to changing the rules in the middle of the game, and I really cannot think that the noble Earl has much to complain about. We have given him the chance of "best of three." He won by a very narrow margin the 1950 Election; we won by nearly as narrow a margin in 1951, and we increased our majority threefold in 1955. When one has seen this working three times,

123
I do not think one can say that it is the middle of the game, because, after all, one can never pass an Act during an Election; it must be after one Election and before another. The point that rather surprised me was the noble Earl's reflection on the countryside. Really, that seemed to me a remarkably old-fashioned conception. I have a cottage on a farm and, apart from cars owned by myself and the owner of the farm, there are, I think, no fewer than eight cars which are owned by people who work on the farm. I do not think that that is particularly untypical of the countryside as I know it.
The noble Earl then falls into the dilemma, which is quite a serious one: either he is bound to say that it is a pity that these people have cars, which I do not think he would for a moment, or that he and his Party have not the slightest chance of attracting any of the eight workers on that farm who own cars. Really I should be sorry if the noble Earl were to sit on either of the horns of that dilemma. There is a danger for all of us, as the years pass on, that we are apt to live in the halcyon period which we enjoyed so much. I could not help feeling, when the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, had to turn back to an election in 1910 that that was really the state of the country and the age and time which noble Lords opposite were envisaging. I cannot see the noble Lords, Lord Howe and Lord Brabazon of Tara, here at the moment, but I think I am right in saying that the first motor car order was in 1903. In 1910 the motor car had moved a little, but not a long way; and to compare those days, to go back forty-eight years to find an argument, when to-day you have 4½ million cars, when factory after factory is faced with the great problem (and how marvellous it is) of finding car parks for the workers who drive up to work—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I interrupt the noble Viscount?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in the middle of an admirable passage like this, surely! I think the noble Lords who have spoken are living in a lost age and are really dreaming about an outmoded world. Now I will give way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: All the "fizz" has gone out of what I was going
124
to say. I was going to remind the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that in 1910, when no doubt he was at college, the fight was absolutely vital. It was the Parliament Act that was at stake, and if Lord Bearsted (Mr. Samuel Samuel, as he then was) had in fact done what he said, namely, brought down trainloads of cars, he would have been using the power given in this Act to win a victory which might have been a vital victory at a vital moment in our history.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has absolutely emphasised and stressed and underlined my point. The Labour Party are living in 1910; they cannot get away from 1910. All we are asking them to do is for the moment to forget 1910 and look at the country, which is teeming with prosperity and car owners in 1958. In fact, I will help them on the way—and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree with me in this. If that great author to whom he owes so much—I mean Karl Marx, not Groucho or Harpo, but the original Karl Marx—were alive to-day, he would not have time to write Das Kapital or preach the class war; he would be so busy looking for some place in Highgate to park his car that he would not have time for anything else. It is really in that situation, when motor cars have come to that extent, that we ask noble Lords for a moment to be forward-looking and to support this Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor puts the Motion to the House, I should like to say that we have been most entertained by the manner in which, in the main speech on behalf of the Government, he has conducted the debate upon this Bill. It is, of course, the occasion for Second Reading and therefore it is not an occasion upon which we should seek to divide the House. Nevertheless, I must make this passing comment: that it seems to me that there was no answer from him to the quotation made from the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council. Moreover, to wipe out the restrictions which more modern thought than that of 1910 decided were necessary to make fair elections—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I
interrupt the noble Viscount? If he thought so, why did he not see that it was put in the Bill by the Government when the Bill was introduced in 1948? Why was it only Back-Bench pressure in his Party which opened his eyes to this great piece of justice?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not at all sure I remember the whole details of the discussions that went on about that particular Bill, but I think it was an excellent occasion on which to give way to the teal experience of the Back-Benchers in fighting elections in their constituencies and raising the matter in the proper place—in the House of Commons. I am merely going to comment that the tendency is to want to get back to the days of freedom, of wealth and wealthiness and of liberty to exploit the general community. We have all heard so much about setting the people free, and nobody talks about anything except the great prosperity the Tories have brought, whereas we see day by day the mounting fear of unemployment and the great difficulties that face the people in the country.
The modern application of that kind of freedom in these matters means that the controllers of accumulated, concentrated wealth, the big companies, the big industrial enterprises, will in a General Election be able not to put in single cars but to put in whole blocks of capitalistically-owned cars into any particular area they like—there is not the slightest difficulty about that. They will be able to take any district they like and do what they like, provided they get the Conservatives in. We will have something more to say upon the matter when we move an Amendment in Committee; but in view of our practice we should not think of dividing on the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to delete from the enactments continued Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. The noble Viscount said: You may well believe with what feeling of real pleasure it is that I pass from the combative atmosphere of the last debate to the Amendment which I am moving from this Bench; because it is an Amendment which I hope will appeal—as I know it appeals to my own Party—to members of other Parties as well. This is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and opinion about it is roughly divided between those who emphasise the word "expiring" and those who emphasise the word "continuance". Ministers always speak about "continuance" and the Opposition always speak about "expiring". I have listened to many such debates in my Parliamentary life.
The Minister speaks about this Act as if it were a sort of gift from Father Christmas—"Here is your opportunity. You can discuss anything you like about the administration of the year. What a chance! What a good boy am I!" But we really regard it in a different light. The Schedule to this Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance, is a list of Acts of such a character that—it may have been through fear; it may have been through dislike, or it may have been because they were uncertain about them—the Government passed through Parliament on the condition that the power lasts only a year. Every year the Minister must come forward and ask for another year. Therefore it is the Ministry that are on the defensive in this particular matter.
Now let me explain a little about the procedure. It is out of order, of course,

127
to move to amend any of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, but what is possible is to move to omit one of the Acts from the Schedule, and therefore I have moved to omit the first item of the Schedule. And if my Amendment were carried then the Aliens Act would disappear. On that, of course, I should not divide the House, because it would be a quite impracticable suggestion. On the other hand, because I feel that noble Lords may say, "Well, what do you propose?", I have placed upon the Order Paper a considered draft of a statutory instrument. Needless to say, I am quite incompetent in the drafting of such a document, but I have had distinguished legal help, and I think that if your Lordships will examine the draft you will find that it is quite a passable legislative suggestion. Though I shall not move it, because I can say all that I have to say in moving the Amendment to the Schedule, I shall have to refer to the draft constantly because it is a sort of aide-memoire for what I should like to see done.
Now I am going to give your Lordships the story of the birth and growth of a lusty Government Department, the Aliens Department. Lord Winterton is not here; nor, unfortunately, is Lord Samuel. I am the only person in this House who saw the birth of that Department, and I have seen it grow from puny infancy to a great, sturdy giant which strikes terror into the hearts of Ministers who are supposed to control it. In 1903, when I became a candidate for the St. George Division of London Docks, which was the main port of entry for aliens, there was no Aliens Act at all. There was no question of aliens not being allowed in. If they wanted to come, they came. A great movement was organised which was called the British Brothers League—the very title would make one suspicious. We were told that the alien flood—they did not say "the number of aliens who came"; they always spoke about "the alien flood"—was going to submerge the East End, and that it was going to ruin us. Where did this flood come from? At that time the Czar and his Cossacks were rather more busy than usual murdering Jews. They used to do that from time to time, and in the early 1900's they were murdering on a large scale and driving numbers of them, including
128
Chaim Weizmann and his family, out of Russia to the West. That, of course, was before the time of the Bolshevik tyranny.
These wretched people were appearing in East London. I was a candidate and, as a Liberal, I felt a great sympathy for them, and I thought it a great shame to attempt to prevent them from entering. We were told "Ah, yes, but if you let them in they will ruin the trade of East London." Well, a sort of compromise was arrived at. I do not know whether any of your Lordships can remember Sidney Buxton, a most distinguished member of this House. He was our Leader. He was the Liberal Member for Poplar. There was a compromise of sorts, and the first Aliens Act was passed. That was in 1905.
This Act had two features. First of all, it specified precisely who were to be excluded. There were about five categories—people who were diseased, and soon. Secondly, in any case it gave them a right of appeal to a body called the Immigration Board—I do not know what exactly that was. There were two things: first, specified law, and, secondly, right of appeal. There it was left in 1905. Then—and this is the first important thing—the little infant, the Aliens Department, was born, and it began to get its toes well in. We shall see how big it got later in the story. Then came the war of 1914, and in one afternoon we passed a law giving absolute power to the Home Secretary. As always the Government operated through statutory instruments, and the Aliens Department could shut out anybody because we were at war and because we were in a state of grave national emergency. If your Lordships will look at Section 1 of the Act of 1914, which was re-enacted in the 1919 Act, you will see that it gives incredible power to the Government in this matter. That was right. The Department was needed. It went to work and it did good work and, I have no doubt, protected the country.
Then came 1919. The Department was there. There was no real need for those great powers. But, of course, you could not get rid of this well-founded bureaucracy, which said, "We are necessary", and invented a whole series of Amendments to the Act, in consequence of which they were able to pursue Germans—anybody could denounce a

129
man of German origin who changed his name. It was an infamous thing. There were only twenty Liberals in the House, but I remember that on the other side there were people like Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Edward Wood, Mr. Walter Guinness and others who stood firm for a liberal policy in this matter. But we were all defeated. It was the worst Government of modern times, the Lloyd GeorgeBonar Law Coalition. That is the story right up to date. That Act has fully persisted. It is a fact that in these days of peace the Aliens Department—these bureaucrats—insist on retaining in this Schedule all the powers that they considered necessary in order to fight Kaiser William and defend this country in a state of emergency. They will not give up a single one of them. That is the gravamen of the argument against this Bill.
My proposition is a simple one and very limited. By the statutory instrument that I have drafted and put on the Paper I have suggested that, in place of the unfettered judgment of this Department and its agents, we should set out something in the nature of Statute Law; and my Amendment sets out things they must not do—they must not exclude for this reason or that. It also provides for a right which I believe everyone would agree is reasonable: that these people shall be able to make some appeal. So moderate is my proposal that it leaves the ultimate decision to the Secretary of State; but it introduces some element of law into what is now, as I shall proceed to show, a scene of chaos—almost comic chaos.
I come now to the events which have really produced the question and made it an issue at the present time. I learn from the Press that about 900 people are refused admission to this country every year for some undefined reason, just on the decision of the official. No notice has been taken of that, but suddenly a spotlight is turned on the whole thing because two very eminent men—Dr. Pauling and Dr. Niemöller—present themselves for admission. I am for complete political freedom but I may mention that these gentlemen were not supposed to be sympathetic with Communism—if anyone is interested in that point. What happened to them? The first thing I want to do is to ask your Lordships to observe the attitude of the Aliens Department to
130
this problem, for it is essentially typical and exactly bureaucratic. When I saw that Dr. Niemöller—who is a very old friend of mine—had been treated as he had been treated one day, I immediately wrote a long letter to the Home Secretary, and it was delivered that very night at the Home Office. After some long delay, which was no doubt due lo the necessity of getting exact information, I received a reply which missed the point entirely. All that I was given in the letter was a list of times—at 12.40, this; at 12.41, that; "You say 12.15, I say 12.22." I am not in the least interested in clocks. The timing was so exact that it might almost have been a Naval signal—"Dr. Niemöller received his passport at hrs. 12.06 Greenwich Mean Time as observed by ships at sea." All that was nothing to do with it.
My point was: what kind of examination was given to this gentleman, and did the Home Secretary agree with it? Was there any Statute to warrant it? Was it something that we could tolerate? Those were the points I wanted to make. All that I had was a letter saying that there was a conflict of evidence. But if there is a conflict of evidence, let us have a law which settles what is the right thing to do. It is no good a bureaucrat saying that there is a conflict of evidence, and then shutting the office and going home. We want something definite, and the conflict of evidence really rests on one or two points which I shall proceed to put to your Lordships.
First of all, Dr. Niemöller was here in April and again in May and October. Did somebody ask him: "What are you going to say in your sermons?" I believe it has been said that that was not asked. If that is to be the reply, then no doubt it will be supported by the relevant documents. I myself am working on letters written by Dr. Niemöller to his friends. I have never communicated with him. The reason why I have not done that is because I was afraid he would write to me and say, "for goodness sake! do not make me an object of contention. I am a man of peace." I am very glad to read in The Times that he is coming to Glasgow again next year. But I am not considering Dr. Niemöller, but rather our reputation and methods—for those are the important things.
Did anyone ask him: "What are you going to put in your sermons?" If so, it

131
was a most unfortunate question to address to Dr. Niemöller, for only two people have ever asked him that question. One was Mr. Hitler and the other was Mr. Butler; and in both cases Dr. Niemöller has given a "dusty answer". As we all know, he was imprisoned for six years because he would not concede the very point that the Aliens Department wanted him to concede here—"Tell us what you are going to say and we will tell you if you can say it." In this particular case he said: "if I am not welcome I will go home". And he went home. There was no complaint there.
This was done at a very unfortunate moment, for it was just when we were doing our best to give a warm welcome to President Heuss. That very week-end President Heuss was preparing to replace the silver candlesticks at St. Paul's which had been destroyed in the bombing, and we were insulting the most famous German in the world. I am not here to criticise Her Majesty's Government in any form. This is a departmental affair, but it is putting it mildly to say that there was a lack of liaison. The second point that really puzzled the Department was this: Dr. Niemöller was asked, "What are you going to preach?" and he replied, "The Gospel of Christ Jesus." Fancy saying that to an official at the airport!—and imagine him saying, "I must ring Holborn 0041 and consult my superior officer on a question of that kind." The official went on to say, "You have been here before. Your name is in this book"—and he produced a book.
I should like to ask whoever is answering this question: Is there such a book? What is its purpose? Is Dr. Niemöller's name in the book? These are questions we should certainly ask before we give the Aliens Department carte blanche to proceed with their good work. I have nearly done, but I must express a word of gratitude to the Under-Secretary, Mr. Renton, who, for the first time, threw a flood of light on the working of his Department. He says [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 595 (No. 18), col. 1431]:
"In case there is doubt about the position of those holding Communist or crypto-Communist views, I hope we can agree, on both sides"—
if there is an agreement it is usually on both sides—
132
"that we are all against Communism but in favour of freedom of speech."
It really could not be better! He goes on to say:
"To the extent that that creates an administrative dilemma, which has to be resolved in the first instance by immigration officers, a careful balance has to be taken and common sense used."
Is that not splendid?
We were charged also with accusing these gentlemen. No one accuses them. I am perfectly certain that airports are spangled with little Lord Chesterfields administratively using a level balance and common sense! It is very difficult to know exactly what the position is. If one is going to charge a man, one wants to know what is the offence. I see an eminent Law Lord in the House and he will tell me if I am wrong; but I believe that it is common to define the offence. So an irritated Socialist says in another place (col. 1432):
"The honourable and learned gentleman used the words 'crypto Communists' very glibly. I would like him to define exactly what is a crypto-Communist, so that the immigration officer may know."
How can he exercise a just balance and exhibit common sense if he does not know what a crypto-Communist is?
Now Mr. Renton contributes one of the finest passages to the interpretation of the English law. He then says (col. 1432):
"When one enters into difficulties of this kind, one can say that one Member's definition is likely to be as good as any other's."
That is the law as it is. My humble effort is to get the position made a little more definite in order to assist these young gentlemen who have protected us from all these outward dangers that arrive at our ports. I have put those questions which I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has noted; and in conclusion, I want to say just one or two general words, because I have had a long life with this.
First of all a word concerning old traditions. About 100 years ago a German arrived here, Karl Marx. Of course, he had not got a passport; nobody had then. What did we do for him? For some years we supplied him with pens, ink and paper, warmth and light, while he wrote the bible of Communism in the British Museum. Are we sorry we did that? Was it a mistake to do it? It established a reputation for the liberty

133
of our land which was marvellous; and all the time the Imperialists were having their way, conquering India and briganding on a large scale in China. It did not unnerve the national hand; but it gave us a sense of moral pride which still persists in this country.
Then, finally, what is the real need to-day? I feel very strongly about this matter. I feel that what we really need is less shouting and more listening. People are always saying, "Why do you not have your propaganda multiplied? Why do you not get new stations to broadcast?" I say: "Why do you not find out what the other man is thinking?" To take a simple example, consider the way the American nation has been paralysed by the boycott they have imposed on China. They know nothing about China, and their policy is staggering along with no knowledge of what is in the minds of two-fifths of mankind. Look round the world and think of the things you would like to know. What about the Middle East? We have no diplomatic relations with the Arab League; we have no diplomatic relations with Iraq. We are getting out of touch.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, may I say that we have diplomatic relations with Iraq?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Did I say Iraq? I meant Saudi Arabia. Of course we have diplomatic relations with Iraq. As regards the East and Africa, the position is just too puzzling for words. One can spend hours a day reading about it. It is a great problem, and what we must do is get in touch, not with the people who agree with us, but with those who do not agree with us. Surely we are big enough to welcome them here and to work out our differences so that we may have a helpful policy. That is the last word I have to say. I am just asking to substitute a law for the "balanced view and common sense" of the official. I am asking your Lordships to give a right of appeal to the people who are turned away, and not to leave the final word, as it is to-day, in the hands of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out:

9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 92.

The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.

Section one

—(Viscount Stansgate.)
5.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to state the Government's view on the Amendment of the noble Viscount before there is a more general discussion.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Ear] is now stating a view regardless of what may be said hereafter in the debate? Would it not be wiser for him to listen to what others have to say before he expresses the Government's view?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Viscount particularly asked that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be here, and I thought it would be in accordance with his wishes and to the convenience of the House if my noble and learned friend were to deal with any further developments in the debate. Of course, I will do whatever is more convenient to your Lordships, but I thought that the noble Viscount would like me first to reply immediately to what he has said.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, and especially to the noble and learned Viscount, who has done more than a day's work in defending an indefensible case all the afternoon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thought it might be helpful to my noble and learned friend to have a short interval before he has to defend yet another "indefensible" case. I was going to say that we appreciate that the noble Viscount has put down this Amendment in order to save your Lordships' time and in order to provide him with an opportunity of discussing the proposals in the Motion which he had later on in the Paper. Therefore I will not take up time by pointing out that if the noble Viscount's Amendment were accepted, it would abolish the Aliens' Restriction Act altogether. We appreciate that the noble Viscount does not intend to do that, and that he merely thought this was the shortest and most convenient way to put the considerations he wished to put to your Lordships.
He began by saying on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that it was always

135
the Opposition who put the emphasis on the "expiring" and the Government who put the emphasis on the "continuance". I have never known any signs of "expiring" about the noble Viscount, although he told us just now that he first got into Parliament in 1903. I think he is plainly an example of a continuing rather than an expiring Parliamentarian. As I was telling the noble Viscount, I believe last night, I remember in 1911 or 1912 seeing a picture in the Parliamentary report of Punch depicting the noble Viscount and Mr. Asquith sitting together in a boat, and the caption was, "Youth at the Prow and Pleasure at the Helm".
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I must warn the noble Earl that if he continues to talk about 1910 we shall get into trouble with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I thought that the noble Viscount might be more amenable to reminiscences of 1910, and I was going to say, in regard to this caption, "Youth at the Prow …" that I think that he would perfectly well form an appropriate subject for a similar cartoon now.
It seems to me strange that on a subject of this importance we should not have a proper Act on the Statute Book and that it should simply be part of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. On the other hand, as the noble Viscount said, this does give your Lordships an opportunity of discussing it every year. I have listened with great pleasure to what the noble Viscount said and it is a matter of regret to have to say, as I expect the noble Viscount knew I would say, that my right honourable friend is unable to accept the proposals which he has put forward, no doubt owing to the fact that my right honourable friend is terrified, or terrorised, by the Aliens Immigration Department!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Of course, the Home Secretary and the Government cannot possibly accept the Amendment to exclude this paragraph from the Schedule. But is the noble Earl referring to the draft statutory order which I put on the Order Paper? Is that rejected also?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course I am; I am sorry that we cannot accept the proposals of the noble Viscount which are printed on the Order Paper and which we realise he intends to discuss on the Amendment. We are not going to waste time to discuss what would happen if the Amendment were accepted; that is quite a different matter. The noble Viscount proposes that no person shall be refused leave to land on the ground that he holds or has advocated any religious, economic or political opinion. I do not think that anybody ever has been refused leave to land on the ground that he holds or has advocated any religious, economic or political opinion. Whether he may have been refused leave to land on the ground that the Home Secretary expected that he would put some of his views into practice is a more difficult question. We might perhaps have a man seeking leave to land whose religion approved of cannibalism. If he merely approved of it, he might be allowed to land; but if the Home Secretary thought he was going to start a cult of cannibalism in this country, my right honourable friend might then use his discretion under the Aliens Act and withdraw the landing permit.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: A helpful suggestion!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Communist Party in this country is not an illegal Party. People are allowed to hold Communist opinions, and I do not think that anybody has been refused leave to land simply on the ground that he holds Communist opinions; but sometimes people have been refused landing permits because the Home Secretary has thought it likely that they were going to take part in activities on behalf of the Russian propaganda machine, whether designedly or not. There is the actual example of the Sheffield Peace Congress in 1950, when a number of people were refused leave to land, and there have been various other cases when this power under the Act has been exercised, not at the instance of the immigration officials at all, but by deliberate decision of the Home Secretary as an act of policy, the Home Secretary instructing the immigration officials to act in this way.
The noble Viscount proceeds to propose that there shall be a committee

137
of appeal appointed by the Lord Chancellor, consisting of three persons, one of whom shall be appointed by the Home Secretary, to advise whether a person who has been refused a landing permit and who wishes to appeal should receive a permit or not. The noble Viscount mentioned that about 900 people were refused permits every year. No doubt the noble Viscount was saving time by not mentioning the fact that about 2,600 people are refused permits every year on an average, but I understand that the distinction is that about 1,700 are refused permits for reasons to which the noble Viscount does not object and therefore we are not considering them. So that leaves the 900. A great many of these are refused because the people concerned do not come within certain categories which the Home Secretary thinks it desirable as a matter of policy to allow to come into this country. It is not a question of the immigration authorities refusing a permit and the Home Secretary having to accept it; it is a question of the Home Secretary telling the immigration authorities what he wants done. If the matter was referred to an independent immigration appeals committee, it would simply be a waste of time. If it was at the instance of the Home Secretary that these people had been excluded, the Home Secretary would have to refuse the advice of the committee and the whole procedure would be a waste of time.
The larger part of the 900 are people whose intention it is extremely difficult to assess. For instance, there are people who say that they are coming here as tourists but who, in the view of the immigration authorities, are obviously coming here with the intention of permanently settling here. If a man is found to have a waiter's kit and an alarm clock in his luggage, he is obviously seeking employment. En such a case the authorities would use their discretion and not give him a landing permit. If we were to give all cases like that the right of appeal to an immigration appeals committee, what is likely to happen? In the first place, it would probably vastly increase the number of people who try to get into the country. They would think that it would take several weeks for their appeal to be heard. What would happen to them during that time? There is not room in the detention room of London Airport
138
for the number of people who would be involved and I do not know where they would be detained, unless in some camp or prison, which would be most unfortunate. If they were allowed to proceed to their destinations, it would involve great difficulties in rounding them up and deporting them, as would happen in most cases. It would be a rather cruel proceeding in many ways and possibly result in an enormous addition to the difficulties of the Home Secretary.
The noble Viscount was good enough to give notice that he was going to instance what took place at London Airport when Dr. Niemöller landed on October 18 and when Dr. Pauling landed in August. Of course, I understand the distinction which the noble Viscount made, but both these gentlemen were given permits to land and to do exactly what they wanted to do. So I do not think that that affects the argument for an immigration appeals committee. What the noble Viscount said, I think, was that the misunderstandings or incidents which took place between these gentlemen and the immigration authorities were an example of the unfortunate political manner with which these applications for landing permits are dealt. I think it has already been said by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that he very much regrets any inconvenience or pain or offence which might have been caused to Dr. Niemöller. At the same time, I think it is necessary to defend the public servants who were accused of discourtesy and cannot answer for themselves.
The noble Viscount said that he was not interested in time-tables. I quite understand that. But in this case the timetables are relevant to the question of discourtesy, because after Dr. Niemöller got back to Germany he published a statement which, I am bound to say, was misleading in several respects. The timetable is an important one of these respects. One thing he said was that he was kept standing the whole time, whereas in fact he was offered a seat, which he refused to accept, no doubt because he was feeling angry. But it is not fair to say that he was kept standing.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have not said that. I do not know who said it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Dr.
Niemöller said it. He also said that his aeroplane landed earlier than it did and

139
he was kept waiting for three-quarters of an hour, whereas in fact he was kept waiting for exactly six minutes. I do not think it is unreasonable that that should have happened, because he was only asked three questions which it is perfectly reasonable to ask: first, where was he going and what would his address be; secondly, what was he going to do; and thirdly, how long was he going to stay here. With regard to his address, which caused a slight misunderstanding, he gave it as the Albert Hall, Manchester. To begin with, the official, perhaps not unnaturally, could not understand how that could be his address, and Dr. Niemöller appears to have thought, because of this misunderstanding, that the official was suspicious, and this irritated him. But as soon as the official understood that this was the address to which Dr. Niemöller wanted letters forwarded, and that he was being looked after at Manchester by a clergyman, he accepted that. Dr. Niemöller was then asked what he was going to do. He first said that he was going to preach one sermon at one place, or give one lecture at one place, and then he produced his programme which showed that he was going to give eight lectures at a great many places.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Scandalous!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The immigration officer immediately rang up the Home Office to ask what would be the appropriate length of time to put on the landing permit. The time before that it had been one or two days, and the time before that a week. This took only a few minutes, and Dr. Niemöller was then told that a fortnight would be the appropriate time, and he put down a fortnight. By that time it was exactly six minutes from when Dr. Niemöller handed in his passport: he handed it in at 12 noon and it was handed back to him at 12.6 p.m. He was apparently offended by the fact that he had been asked any questions at all, and he went back to Germany.
I am sorry that this has happened; but there it is. I am sure that many of us who have been questioned by customs authorities, immigration authorities or currency exchange authorities when we have been travelling must often have felt irritated and annoyed by being asked questions which it is really the duty of the official to ask, and perhaps when we
140
got home if we had written an account of it our irritation might have led to our account being rather exaggerated and misleading. I should not complain of that if it did not involve unfairness to the official concerned. I think it is right to make it clear that we do not think the allegations of discourtesy and lack of consideration are at all serious, and we want to defend the servants of the public from the very much exaggerated and unfounded allegations of discourtesy which have been made. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is a friend of Dr. Niemöller, and I am sure that we all wish to share that friendship with this man. We do not want to pursue a quarrel with him. We think that a misunderstanding has occurred, and we regret that misunderstanding; but we want to be fair to everybody else as well as to Dr. Niemöller himself.
5.45 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this discussion except that we are here concerned with the freedom of the individual, and perhaps on that subject a lawyer may take some part; because next to Parliament the courts of justice have done as much as anybody to preserve the freedom of the individual. Here we are concerned with the essential freedom: the freedom of mind, of conscience; the freedom of each man to think what he likes and to say what he likes; the freedom to hold and express his opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be and how distasteful to the Government. Everyone is free not only to express opinions of which we approve, but also opinions which we cannot abide. That is the principle of our law, subject only to one exception: that no person must express views which are subversive to the Government of the country, or a danger to the fabric of society—in other words, sedition. That principle must be kept, because when we have freedom of speech we cannot allow it to extend to those who by its exercise would destroy that freedom, any more than that we should allow freedom of movement to people who would use the road to block it for others. Subject to that exception, the freedom must be intact, and applied not only to our own people, but also to those coming here.
In our law all down the centuries, as to people coming here, the Crown, the

141
Executive Government, have always had a complete discretion to refuse entry; and even if this order were repealed, that power would remain. But what are the principles on which it should be exercised? I should like to read the principle which was stated in 1946, when the followers of Dr. Buchman, in the Oxford Group, sought to come to this country and some people said that they should be excluded. My right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, the then Home Secretary, made this statement of principle which I do not think can be bettered:
"I am not prepared to apply religious or political tests to people who desire to come into this country unless it can be established that they desire to come here to carry on subversive propaganda. Let us hear all things. For I believe the common sense of the British democracy is such that in the long run they will winnow the chaff from the wheat. I desire that the ancient record of this country as a place of free speech where the flow of ideas from all parts of the world is welcome may be maintained."
So long as that principle is applied by successive Secretaries of State, there can be no difficulty. The question, as I see it, is whether there should be anyone to guide the Secretary of State; whether there should be an advisory committee or some body of that kind.
Let me ally this question—for it is allied with it—to the question of deportation of aliens. At Common Law, while the Secretary of State could exclude anyone from coming in, once he was here any alien friend was equal under the law to any citizens of this country. So long as his country was friendly he was entitled to the full benefit of our law. So much so that Professor Dicey, in his Law of the Constitution, said that we had gone too far. He put this instance: suppose a group of foreign anarchists came to this country and conspired together to blow up the Houses of Parliament—
A NOBLE LORD: A splendid idea!
LORD DENNING: —he said that if we could not prove enough against them to arrest them for conspiracy the Home Secretary could not detain them, and he could not even deport them, because they were entitled to the privileges of the law of this country. Therefore, we certainly need this Act and this Order. There should be a power of deportation in appropriate cases.
But what about this power of deportation? It is given by this Order but, in-
142
deed, under this Order, when the Secretary of State makes an order for deportation now, if the person has been in this country for more than two years there is a revision by the chief magistrate of the Metropolis. Out of seventeen cases which have been referred to him he has confirmed fourteen of the deportation orders, but three of them he has not concurred in; and those people still remain in this country. Does that not show the value of a revision of this discretion by the Executive? Does it not show that, on this higher discretion (even more important as to people coming in), while certainly there must be the general rules, there is a case to be made for having an independent advisory committee?
Is it not rather like the cases we remember during the war? In the 18B cases, one could not prove that a person had done anything wrong. Action was taken on suspicion. I happened to be a legal adviser on the regional committees dealing with the 18B cases, and they were all carefully inquired into before any recommendation was made for detention. Because it is not a question of an offence having been committed; it is not a judicial matter. The proposal is simply for an advisory committee to help the Secretary of State in his most important task of discretion—a discretion which affects the liberty and the freedom of the individual. Is there not a case to be made, therefore, for having some advisory committee—whether exactly on the lines proposed by the noble Viscount, I would not say—to see that the freedoms which we have done so much in this country to maintain shall be applied to all people in this country and those coming to it, so that we may know we are surely the home of freedom?
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I do not wish to follow the rights and wrongs of the case of Dr. Niemöller but to discuss rather the large arbitrary powers which lie in the hands of very junior officials. As the noble and learned Lord has said, these are mainly prerogative powers, not based on carefully considered Statute Law. When for two years before the war I had the honour to work in the Home Office, one could see how Parkinson's Law worked in effect: the desperate slowness of getting any cases through; valuable German scientists and doctors we were

143
trying to get out, the slow working of the bureaucratic machine and how much depended on a few junior overworked officials.
Some of us have seen in the Manchester Guardian two extremely interesting articles on the training of immigration officers. They are carefully selected and trained, but they are very young men, and like the rest of us, they can get tired and impatient; they may find the hour late, and they may be irritated. They are the most charming and courteous men, but they are all liable to the human frailty which encompasses us all. It is too big a responsibility that the whole future of some immigrant may depend on what must be sometimes the hurried decision of a junior officer. Consider the case of the immigrant. He arrives in this country perhaps hardly speaking our language at all, or speaking it very badly. He is probably very nervous. He has come from a country where he may have regarded the police and officials as his natural enemies. He has no friend beside him to advise him or help him. He is hardly likely to make the best of his case in those circumstances. Surely it is right, on the score of humanity, to give some form of appeal against what must be the speedy judgment of a rather young official at the port, or sometimes the judgment of a comparatively junior official in the Home Office.
I do not accord to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that verbal infallibility I deny to the Pope, and I am not going to say that this is a perfect draft clause; but I hope it will be considered sympathetically. During the war I saw the sort of trouble that can come from power in the hands of good, well-meaning junior officials. If your Lordships will permit me, I will tell you the story. There was an Austrian who escaped from Hitler and went to Iceland. When the war started he joined the French Foreign Legion, and got a commission. At the time of the French Armistice he was in Syria, and escaped with a party of Free French. But when they got to Egypt the Free French 'were rather nationalistic, and said, "We do not want any damned German with us." So he was put back on the British.
At that time things were going well, and the British said, "We do not want a
144
German in Egypt", so he was sent to Palestine. In each of those cases he was sent by a junior official. In Palestine, an official said, "This is an immigrant not on the quota—pop him into Jaffa gaol." There this man languished for months. He happened to remember my name, and he wrote me a letter. I tried to get the official machine working, and after a matter of months they agreed that there was nothing against this chap. They said, "The Palestine authorities do not want any more immigrants because he is not in the right place on the list, and you had better leave him in Jaffa gaol." The British had no facilities for taking on foreigners, and only through the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and his Embassy, did we manage to get that fellow out of gaol and in a job in one of the French African Colonies, where he served very well.
That shows the sort of injustice that can happen when comparatively junior officials have these great powers over an unfortunate immigrant, when there is no revisionary tribunal and no power of appeal. If there had been any form of revisionary tribunal in that case, that man would have been out of gaol in a matter of weeks, instead of languishing there for over a year. That, of course, is not a complete analogy, but it does show the importance of having, as the noble and learned Lord said, some form of appeal where the case can be stated, where witnesses can be heard, and where a person can be represented by a lawyer and a friend.
We are entering shortly into a notable experiment of British initiative backed by Her Majesty's Government, namely, the International Refugee Year. Her Majesty's Government have sponsored it, and the United Nations have given it a most generous financial donation. Already the Home Office have liberalised the categories of immigrants who may be allowed into this country. We hope when this Year starts to see the closing of the ghastly refugee camps where people still languish twelve years after the war. We want an attitude of sympathy, and not merely of justice, from Her Majesty's Government. So many refugees are tubercular and are not a great asset to the country of immigration, but yet have children who sit in these camps and whose future must be

145
considered. Surely if we are going to take, and I believe we should take, a liberal attitude towards the immigration of our coloured fellow subjects from the West Indies or India or Pakistan, if we can afford to take in unlimited numbers, surely we can be equally generous to our fellow Europeans of whom, after all, we have a great many in this country—the Jews, the Germans, the Poles and the Hungarians have settled equally successfully. And because I believe in the unity of Europe as well as the unity of the British Commonwealth I hope that Her Majesty's Government will revise the whole machinery under which immigrants come into this country, so that there can be a careful consideration of each individual case, more so than there is at this moment.
6.2 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which the noble Viscount has put down, and particularly the draft scheme which is on the Paper. I quite agree with what has been said; it would be difficult to work at first, but I do not think it would be impossible. One frequently finds that these schemes which present administrative difficulties turn out to be far easier to work in practice. There is one matter which I would mention and which has not so far been mentioned: that is, the immigration procedure into this country, which I have never quite understood. When some foreigner applies to one of our consulates abroad for a visa to come here he is put through a very searching questioning about why he wants to come. He is given his visa and when he arrives, rather to his surprise, he gets interviewed—perfectly courteously; I have nothing against the attitude of the immigration authorities; they do their job very well. But he is put through the same cross-examination and is asked the same questions as he was asked in the country where he obtained his visa. That seems a great waste of time as well as being rather puzzling to the individual. The other thing which seems to me strange is the short amount of time for which people are permitted to come here. The noble Earl said that Pastor Niemöller was allowed at first one day, then two days and lastly a fortnight. Why a fortnight? Why could he not stay longer?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: On the first occasion he wanted only two or three days
146
to attend the funeral of the Bishop of Chichester. The last time he had a lecture tour lasting about ten days and he was allowed a fortnight.
LORD AMULREE: I do not see why it was necessary to ring up the Home Office and ask for the fortnight. I should have thought he might have been given a rather more generous time. That happens on many occasions.
There is a further point, and that is the question of people who wish to come to live here permanently. I was interested to read that the Home Secretary, speaking in another place on November 20, gave a much more liberal view about the number of people who could come here—people who wanted to write and paint. What gave me great pleasure was that he said that other people would be considered much more freely if they did not want to take up employment. I can see that at the present time there may be certain difficulties in the employment field, although I am not sure that they cannot be overcome. But I have known one or two people, particularly Americans, who wished to come and settle here and spend their dollars here. They were told, quite courteously and politely, that they could not stay; they could come and spend their dollars but after a certain time they must go back, although they could come again. That does not seem the best way to encourage people to come and spend dollars which we want.
I remember talking to a man who was a member of the Government—he is not a member now—and I was told I would not expect it to be said that somebody could buy their way into the country. That seems an extraordinary attitude to take towards someone who does not want a job here, who does not want public assistance or to get money from the country but is prepared to come to the country and buy goods here. It seems extraordinary to say of them that it is not a good thing that they should be able to buy their way into the country. There does seem a tendency to improve this system and I trust that the improvement will be carried on. I look forward—maybe I am too optimistic—to the day when those unpleasant and ugly words "security risk" can be entirely abolished from our vocabulary, when it will be possible for the immigration officers to abandon their tasks and work on more

147
productive occupations, and when the passport reverts to what it was when the noble Viscount was young, a form of protection when one is travelling in an uncivilised country.
6.7 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord emphasise the great tradition which this country has in the way of welcoming aliens, and how much our cultural life has been benefited and enriched by contributions which many families, some of whom are numbered among your Lordships, have brought into this country as a result of the generous policy of the past. Unfortunately, since this Aliens Order of 1905 was made, this tradition. I am afraid, has been slipping away. I think it is a very good thing that we are having this discussion this afternoon in order to bring this matter out into the light of day again.
The difficulty is that as a result of Parkinson's Law there are many small officials, to whom the noble Lord opposite referred, who exercise, in effect, an autocratic control in these cases. If you can get to the Home Secretary or a high official in the Home Office, where the outlook, I think, is essentially liberal, then it is all right and mistakes are righted. I had the privilege of bringing before your Lordships' House the case of M. René Cassin, the President of the Conseil d'État in France, who was held up at Victoria by one of these immigration officers; and the Home Secretary generously apologised for the conduct of his subordinates. The Home Secretary can take a wide and generous view like that in these cases. Monsieur Cassin and Pastor Niemöller are important men, and mistakes can no doubt be rectified in due course. But it is the small man who has no redress who is causing worry to many of us.
As a university teacher I see a great many students coming into this country, university students particularly and students generally. I regret to say there is a widespread feeling that there is an attitude of hostility. I do not think there is an attitude of hostility, but that is the impression many of them get at our ports. I feel it is a great mistake that we divide the aliens and British subjects into two queues when they get to Dover or Folkestone. It does not happen anywhere
148
else. When I get to France I am not herded among the goats and subjected to a hostile gaze; I go through with the Frenchmen into France. I think this division is a great mistake. Your Lordships may think it is a small matter because, after all, it does not matter very much—most of them are not received at all in a hostile way. But it makes a bad impression at the start, and I think it is most unfortunate.
I feel that it is essential, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that there should be some impartial committee to look into the question of whether there is a prima facie case of a mistake having been made. At present, if somebody like myself is approached, and feels that there is a good case, it can be taken up with the Home Office; but even then, it is an official in the Home Office looking at the work of another official. That, I feel, is wrong. It should be submitted to somebody outside, who can say "Well, I have looked at this file and I think there is a prima facie case of a mistake having been made. Will the Home Secretary look at it and put it right?"
Only a few days ago a friend of mine, a distinguished professor in the university, happened to travel to Paris with a young Frenchman who had been turned back at Folkestone, where he had been going to stay with a friend's family. The aliens official had the idea that he was coming over here to get a job, as happens in so many of these cases. Cross-examined, the wretched man said, "Well, I should like to stay in England a little while longer, if possible, and I might look around for a job", whereupon he was sent back. He was not allowed to land. I applaud the aliens officer for saying that he would telephone to the man's friends, who were allowed to come and speak to him over the rail. Is that not really a scandalous thing? The man was sent back; he had to spend all the money he had left in his pocket on getting back to Paris; and of course my friend met a thoroughly disgruntled Frenchman, who felt that the hostility of the English was really beneath contempt.
That is not a solitary instance; these cases are being brought to my attention repeatedly. I have taken them up with high officials in the Aliens Department of the Home Office, who have accepted my representations most courteously; and in a number of cases they have agreed

149
that the representations were right and the matter was put right. But why should it depend on the accident that a person can come to me, or to my noble friend, or to somebody else who can help him? There ought to be some method by which such people have a right to have their case looked into and redress given, if that is the right course.
Recently I had brought to my notice the ease of a man who was to appear in a television discussion. He was a leading authority on his subject. When he got to Heath Row the aliens officer made him promise that he would not accept remuneration for doing this job, which was the whole object for which he had come. Because he had to keep the engagement and did not want to disappoint the people, he naturally agreed. But the whole thing is surely completely wrong. I was very glad indeed that the representative of the Home Office in another place said that the Home Secretary felt that it was time that this matter was looked into. I hope he will look into it thoroughly and carefully, not only at the grievances which exist but with a view to establishing some sort of machinery which will prevent that sort of thing happening in the future.
6.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for initiating a debate which has brought to light some important views. It is satisfactory to note that, as in the other House, this debate has been conducted entirely on non-Party lines. We find ourselves, I think, in the traditional Parliamentary rôle of Parliament questioning the activities of the Executive and the expansion of the powers of the Executive which have come into being through circumstances which are quite different from the normal circumstances of peace. My noble friend Lord Stansgate may be somewhat abashed to find that, despite his radical views on this matter, he has the support of The Times newspaper; but I hope that your Lordships, in the light of the views expressed in the leader to-day, and of the views expressed in this House to-day, will join in saying that the time is overdue for a really thorough examination of this whole question.
I do not share—and I am sure that those of your Lordships who have criticised the immigration officials do not
150
extend this criticism generally—any views that might be felt that the officials at our ports and airports behave in any way other than according to their ordinary ability. I think it is striking how much courtesy is shown despite the difficulties that they encounter. I think we may note with a great deal of satisfaction the real advance that has come into this field as the result of the announcement of the Home Secretary of two important concessions, for which, although, as The Times said, they were long overdue, we ought to be most grateful. What we want to press on the Government to-day is that they will continue this process of liberalisation.
I should like to take up the particular point made by my noble friend Lord Stansgate with regard to the application of the rules of procedure (whatever they may be) in the matter of admission or otherwise of aliens who at the moment might be regarded as of dubious character. When the noble Earl, Lord Dundee was questioned on the statement of the Under-Secretary in another place with regard to the administrative dilemma which has to be resolved in the first instance by immigration officers, he said that no one would be denied admission because of his views, but a man might be denied admission if he proposed to practise his views. He took the example of a man who might wish to be a cannibal and might wish to introduce a cult of cannibalism. I have only one friend who has been a cannibal and although he frequently comes to this country, he has not fallen foul of the immigration officials, and has never sought to introduce the cult. But even if he did wish to introduce the cult, there would be nothing to stop him under this legislation, because he happens to be a British subject; and it really is a nonsense, when we deal with British subjects by the ordinary law of the land, not to be content to leave this in the case of aliens.
I would ask the Lord Chancellor to tell us (I understand that he is going to reply) what would be meant by the expression "the practice of Communism." Did the noble Earl mean by practising Communism that it would he wrong to preach it? Surely, in this country to-day the one thing that we are all convinced of is that the general preaching of Communism is not likely to damage us very much. Those of us who are concerned

151
with political meetings know the great difficulty we have in getting anybody to them at all. If doubtful foreigners, preaching views which on the whole are not acceptable to the great majority of people in this country, come and try to hold meetings, they are certainly not going to do much good for their cause—indeed, political activities by foreigners in any country are very unwise activities, from the point of view of the cause which the particular foreigner wishes to support. I would submit to the Lord Chancellor that the arguments in favour of this type of restraint do not bear examination, and that we might well now advance to a position in which this country can set an example—an example for which, in the past, we have been famous and for which I think in the future we can bring great lustre to the name of this country, if we introduce a more liberal approach to this matter.
There is only one other point I should like to deal with, briefly. It is a powerful one and arises on the important speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It concerns the operation of the system of appeal to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. I understand that the word "appeal" is wrong and that the right word is "representation". The fact that, after review of their cases, three out of seventeen aliens awaiting deportation—somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent.—were allowed to remain, suggests that among other aliens who have not the two years' qualification, and, even more, those who are turned back at our ports, there is a high percentage who would have been admitted had their case been subjected to review of some kind. And when we consider the really terrible anguish, heartbreak and misery that it must mean to many of these people, we ought to make a great effort if possible to meet their needs.
I would submit that the arguments against either an extension of stay or of establishing a proper review procedure are not beyond the capacity of the Home Office or Her Majesty's Government to solve. The numbers concerned are not great. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked: "How are we going to deal with these great numbers?" At the present moment 2,500 are turned back, and if even 1,000 were allowed to stay longer it would be an average of three or four
152
a day, spread throughout all the ports of this country; and surely it would be possible to get over these particular difficulties. In any case, if it is accepted that there is a case, the administrative obstacles ought not to stand in the way.
In urging the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and Her Majesty's Government to consider approaching some kind of solution along the lines advocated by my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I would suggest that, as a start, they should appoint some impartial Committee—I do not feel that it really warrants anything as weighty as a Royal Commission—to look into this question. The Home Office have not a reputation for harshness: we have many examples of admirable and humane administration, and it is a tragedy that these should be marred, time and again, by isolated instances. But the Home Secretary and the Home Office, who are themselves the people concerned with administering a difficult enough law, and have had to build up rules of procedure and precedents to guide themselves, are not the people to carry out this fresh investigation. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider the appeals which have been made to them to submit this matter to impartial inquiry.
6.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies I should like to make one or two brief observations. First, I am sure we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for the charming way in which he introduced this vitally important subject. It is noteworthy that he has had support from every quarter of the House. This is obviously not a Party political question, and I think that most Members of this House will be in agreement that our aim is to provide the greatest measure of liberalisation in our policy of administration and of expulsion.
The Home Secretary has already conceded, to a limited extent, the case for an examination of the question of expulsion. It occurs to me that perhaps it would be hasty to accept the Amendment on the Paper as it stands, but I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Shackleton, that there is here a case

153
for inquiry. I should like to make a distinction as between policy and administration. I do not think it would necessarily be wise to have an inquiry into Government policy, for that, after all, is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. Such criticisms as we have had here this afternoon have not been so much on policy as on administration. I believe that, broadly, we all accept that there must be some restriction. I do not believe that anyone would argue that there must be unrestricted admission into this country, or that in no circumstances should we have the right to deport. Therefore to a large extent we accept that. Even if we accept that admission, or at any rate a refusal to admit, must be regulated by or based on Government policy—and Government policy can be argued in this House and in another place and finally determined; I do not think that that should be a matter for outside inquiry—nevertheless I believe that the question of administration might well be investigated. Is Government policy being administered in the way we want it administered? Can it be improved?
I entirely associate myself with those noble Lords who have said that, by and large, the immigration officers are doing a very fine job of work, often under trying conditions. If they make a mistake or an error of judgment here and there, well, they are human, and we all make mistakes. The difficulty is that when mistakes are made at the present time there is no method by which those mistakes can be corrected, unless the person concerned happens to remember the name of the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, or some other Member of this House or another place; and then it takes a long time to get it corrected, if it ever is. So I feel that there should be some method by which administrative mistakes can be corrected.
I feel, however, that there are considerable administrative difficulties which have not been considered, still less discussed, this afternoon, in setting up a tribunal or body which would be in a position to say whether or not the decision of the officer is right or is in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. These matters take time, and such questions as what is to happen to the alien in the meantime and how he is to be dealt with are not provided for in this Amendment; and there are many
154
other questions which should be discussed. I therefore associate myself entirely with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that there is here a case for setting up an inquiry, first, as to whether it is reasonable, practicable and right that an alien seeking admission to this country who is refused should have the opportunity of stating his case before somebody and, if his admission is not contrary to policy, of having a wrong decision corrected.
I have said that policy is a matter for the Government, but I believe that our policy should change from time to time according to circumstances. For instance, we have had under consideration this question of the admission into this country of coloured people. It is conceivable (I do not think the position has arisen at this moment) that a real problem may arise, and although I would suggest that perhaps this again is a matter for the Government of the day to decide, nevertheless it is one for consideration as to whether there should not be some body watching these questions and making representations to the Government from time to time.
At one period of time it may be desirable to admit aliens and permit them to work. The decision that aliens must not come here to work may be all very well in a period of unemployment, but what about a time of shortage of labour, particularly a shortage of skilled labour and, furthermore, a shortage of a particular type of labour? Is it right that, a policy decision having been made, that decision should stand for all time or that it should not be easy of review? I would therefore suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that Her Majesty's Government might consider the possibility of either this body that I am suggesting, or some other body, reviewing these policy decisions from time to time and being able to make representations, while not having the right to alter policy.
I need hardly suggest that there are precedents for that kind of thing. I myself sat for many years on an advisory committee of the Ministry of Health, and I believe at the Home Office, too, and we used to make representations, after much consideration. Sometimes they were accepted and sometimes they were not; but I think they were always useful.

155
So I think that my noble friend Lord Stansgate probably would be well satisfied if the outcome of this debate were that the Government said they were prepared to set up a body to look into this whole question and to decide, first, whether there should be some body which would have the question of immigration policy constantly under review for the purpose of advising the Government; and, secondly, whether there should be some body to whom a person refused admission would have a right to make representations. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will give us as sympathetic a reply as he can. I know that his sympathies are with us: I hope that he will be able to express them.
6.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will not consider that this is fulsome, because it is very sincere, when I thank him for introducing this discussion to-day. I believe this is a subject which requires periodic ventilation, and I say that, having been for three years in charge of it myself and knowing it from that end of the gun, if I may put it that way.
I think it is important that I should say—and I am sure I have the whole House with me—that we have not, and it cannot be said against us that we have, abrogated or abandoned the old liberal policy which has been our pride. Since the war nearly 250,000 aliens of various countries have been admitted, in addition to between 70,000 or 80,000 German and Austrian Jewish refugees in the years before the war. That is not a bad record; in fact, I think it is a record of which we can be proud, but not complacent. I do not know enough about comparative populations to know how it would compare with our grateful acceptance of, say, the Huguenots after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, or any of the other historical large acceptances, but I should suspect that it compares very well.
The only other figure which I think your Lordships might have in mind is the one to which my noble friend Lord Dundee referred and I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary mentioned in the speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred; and that is that (I am giving it in round
156
figures) the total number of aliens coming into this country, including those coming temporarily, was 1,300,000. Of these, 2,600, or 0·2 per cent., were turned back; and, as my noble friend, Lord Dundee, said, the 2,600 included four categories that were subject to refusal: 523 on labour-permit grounds, 356 because of insufficient means, 589 on technical breaches of the transit procedure and 99 because documents were not available. That leaves the remainder at somewhere about the figure of the noble Viscount of between 900 and 1,000, which, if my arithmetic is right, is about 0·08 per cent. So I think the House will agree with me that it is not a bad thing to mention these figures, because they show that we are in the main keeping to the tradition of which we are all proud.
May I deal with one of the broad points which really arises from the noble Viscount's speech—it was considered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Denning, and I think it was in the minds of everyone who spoke. That is: is it something that can be decided without thought as to whether we should have a justiciable or executive procedure in dealing with this problem? My noble and learned friend Lord Denning pointed out, with great fairness from the legal point of view, that there always has been an executive power; and he said he realised the importance of that. I believe there are two difficulties in not having executive power. The first is that if we do not have an executive discretion we then must make the categories absolutely hard and fast; and I am not sure that hard and fast categories on which a court must decide irrespective of, broadly, the policy considerations, is the best way of dealing with the matter. I think that the advantages of dealing with it by an executive measure is that that method is flexible, it can deal with special cases, and, of course, it is very susceptible to Parliamentary pressure.
When I was at the Home Office I have stood at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons for half an hour, being cross-examined as to why I had taken a certain step. That is a very powerful procedure, because it affects not only the broad case I am dealing with, but one's general approach. That does not rule out the second point of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—

157
that of having something in the nature of an advisory committee—and I should like to return to that matter when I answer his final point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has been among many who have dealt with what I might call the minor official point. I am trying to reject the temptation of being too favourable towards those of whom. I was in charge for a period of three years; but I want your Lordships to realise—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did realise it and said so specifically—that the immigration officer has a very difficult task. He is there at the port of incoming; he knows (and this is not imagination) that there are certain people that it is very important that he should know about; and he has to do his job as the queue comes off the boats. I have gone down myself when I was in charge of the service, and watched it both at the ports and at the airports, because I wanted to see for myself how it was carried out. There was no question of their arranging it for me, because I watched the ordinary line coming off the boat. I saw it done, and it is not an easy job.
I do not want to go into details about the practice of Communism. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who invited me to addreses myself to that point. He knows well enough, without my going into what are known as security details, that there is a fringe about which we have to be careful, and anyone who has had anything to do with security knows that that is something that has to be watched for. Then there are certain rules which have to be kept in regard to people coming here for employment. I think that the men at the airports and seaports do their jobs conscientiously and, on the whole, very well. There are bound to be cases where things go wrong. I think that every noble Lord who has spoken has said that the human element does fail, and we try to do our best. I tried to do what I could by going down and talking to the men and trying to give them my picture of how the job should be done. That is a small matter, because I am sure that every Home Secretary has done that from the beginning of time. The immigration officials know that they ought to keep up not only a high standard of examination but also a high standard of courtesy in the first impression that they, as representing this coun-
158
try, make on people coming in. It is now four years since I ceased having control over the service, so I can be a little more objective. My view is that the immigration officials make a great effort and that on the whole they are successful.
One of the difficulties we have to face is the question of permanent settlement. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was very conscious of that. I have just been reading in an old volume of the Annual Register that one of the problems then was Italian labour in the mines. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of it, but your Lordships will remember that ten years ago that built up within a month or two into a serious problem. That is the sort of event which illustrates Lord Silkin's point. At that time we were at a period in our economy when coal was a harder currency than dollars and it was immensely important and immensely difficult to get more people into the pits. At the moment the position, shall we say, is not the same—but I will not go into controversial matters. I will consider what the noble Lord has said, but I am inclined at the moment to think that it is a matter for Governmental consideration rather than for advice. However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the noble Lord could find terms of reference and ask if we would keep in mind the economic position when drawing them to our attention. I am fully open to consider that point.
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning put absolutely accurately the position of the Chief Magistrate on deportation. It is a matter of referring to him, for his recommendation, cases of aliens who have been here for over two years. If I may say so, I entirely agree with that point of view. I think that after a certain period we have contributed, for better or for worse, to the formation of an alien's personality, and therefore we ought to be slower in getting rid of a person who may well say that some of the things we do not like he has learned in this country. I think that that is a proper point of view. I think my noble and learned friend would agree that the problem of dealing with somebody who has been here some time is different from that of dealing with somebody who has been here for only a matter of months, and equally to deal

159
with somebody who comes from outside and the admissibility of whom may involve factors which the Chief Magistrate, with great respect to him, is not in an especially good position to judge. I should like to consider this matter carefully but I give just that word of warning on the point.
May I tell your Lordships one of my own difficulties? It may be that some of your Lordships may think that I am old-fashioned and obscurantist on this point, but when I was Home Secretary I was very worried by people coming in here for bogus organisations—that is, organisations which assumed a liberal name and a very liberal general purpose but which underneath, as was obvious to anyone who knew, had the purpose of furthering the Communist cause and of getting people involved with foreign Communist bodies. I took that view and said without hesitation in another place that that was my policy. I am not revealing it after the time, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will remember that I was questioned about it in another place. But on the whole it was accepted by both sides of the House as being a proper policy decision in the circumstances then prevailing. That is the sort of question which a Home Secretary has to decide, and to put, as I tried to do, honestly to Parliament. If Parliament does not like it, then so much the worse for the Home Secretary, in the long run, because he goes down on the Parliamentary thermometer of ministerial reputations. But that is the sort of point that I honestly felt was the problem requiring such an action on my part at that time. I think it is right that, if one forms certain decisions, one ought to announce them to Parliament and let everyone know what they are.
I want to come to the main point that has been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I think it was also the keynote of the Motion and speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, on November 20, used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 595 (No. 18), col. 1350]:
"I will undertake that as a result of the debate we shall continually review the powers given to us. Where changes are necessary or where a new inflection should be given to existing policy, we shall give it."
160
On behalf of my right honourable friend, I repeat that assurance to your Lordships.
On the other two points I cannot at the moment go further than this, because of course I have not had an opportunity of discussing with Mr. Butler what would be said to-day. I promise to bring to his attention, and to discuss with him, both the points which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: first, as to whether there should be an extraneous inquiry, in addition to the internal review which my right honourable friend has promised; and secondly, the very interesting conception, to which I myself should like to give a lot more thought, of an advisory committee. Like the noble Lord, I have had the advantage, as a Minister, of advisory committees; they are most helpful. As I have tried to show in my speech, I was particularly interested in the noble Lord's conception of the committee as keeping the Minister abreast of changes which he might well otherwise miss.
I hope that I have not been too discursive in this answer. I have tried to deal with the problems from the aspect of one who has experienced them from the ministerial point of view. I can say, with my hand on my heart, that I have enjoyed listening—and I have not only derived enjoyment from it, but I have sympathy with it—to the method with which the arguments have been advanced. I have worked with Mr. Butler for a quarter of a century, and therefore I can say without reference that he will also approach the suggestions sympathetically. I conclude by repeating his assurance that we will never view this problem with complacency, but that he will constantly review its implementation and try to improve it.
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In carrying out my intention of asking leave to withdraw my Amendment I hope the Lord Chancellor will permit me to make one or two observations. First of all, I thank him for what, as always, was a charming and courteous approach to the subject. There is a Third Reading to this Bill, and he will not be surprised if we ask him to give us a little more information on Third Reading about his promise to consider the question of an advisory committee of some sort, as is suggested in my

161
Amendment. Finally, I observe that, although the Lord Chancellor gave us a mass of information and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was most interesting, neither of them was good enough to reply to what. I regarded as the key question. I never criticised the officials at all. What did was to ask two questions. The first was: is it a fact that at any time in March, April or August there was a question about the contents of sermons?—because I think that point has shocked the public conscience. Secondly I asked: is there a book of some kind in which Dr. Niemöller's name is inscribed? If an answer to those questions can be provided on Third Reading, I shall be obliged.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
6.55 p.m.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.