Sitting of 17 May 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (SUBSCRIPTIONS)
  Mr. Petherickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, how many States are taking part in the current I.L.O. Conference; and which of these paid their subscriptions for this year and last.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Forty-three States took part in the recent International Labour Organisation Conference at Philadelphia. I am circulating the full list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the question, information as to which States members have paid contributions for this year and last year has not yet been published.
  Mr. Petherick: May I ask when it will be published? It does seem rather important, in order that we may know how much real attention these States pay to the International Labour Organisation.
  Mr. Eden: My information is that finance is dealt with in private sittings, but that audited accounts are published later, and audited accounts have been published for 1942, but not later. I agree that it would be desirable if they were published more quickly.
  Mr. Mander: Is this not a part of the continual attempt to discredit any form of international arrangement?
  Mr. Eden: If I may say so, I think it is an advantage for any international organisation to make public its finances as soon as it reasonably can.
  Following is the list:
  The following States members of the International Labour Organisation took part in the Conference at Philadelphia:
  Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eire, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hayti, India, Iraq, Iberia, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Persia, Peru, Poland, Union of South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, United States of America, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.
  In addition the following non-member States were invited to attend the Conference and sent accredited representatives:
  Iceland, Nicaragua, Paraguay.

  SPAIN (AGREEMENT)
  Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the German consul and his staff have yet left Tangier.
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied with the steps taken by the Spanish Government to implement the agreement recently made by them with this country.
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to report that the German consul-general and his staff have now left Tangier and that the German consulate-general has been closed.
  Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how it is that the German flag is still flying over the German consulate at Tangier and that no steps have so far been taken by the Spanish Government to close the consulate in accordance with the agreement with Great Britain and the U.S.A.
  Mr. Eden: I understand that, immediately after the agreement reached between His Majesty's Government, the United States Government and the Spanish Government early this month, of which I informed the House on 2nd May, the Spanish Government made urgent representations to the German Government concerning the closure of the German Consulate-General at Tangier and the departure of German officials connected with it. His Majesty's Government had anticipated that it would probably take some days to complete the necessary formalities. The Spanish

  155
  Minister for Foreign Affairs has now informed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires that the Spanish Government's decision to close the German Consulate-General in the immediate future is definite, and that it has been accepted by the German Government. I understand that the Consular shield and flag are being taken down at once, if indeed this has not already taken place, His Majesty's Government, who are fully alive to the importance of avoiding undue delay, have no reason to suppose that the Spanish Government do not share their desire to dispose of this matter satisfactorily in the immediate future. It is obvious that the reciprocal obligations contained in the recent agreement hang together, and that no one undertaking can be carried out apart from the others.
  In this connection, I am glad to be able to inform the House that satisfactory discussions are proceeding between British, American and Spanish experts in Madrid regarding the technical measures required in connection with the wolfram clauses in the agreement. The Spanish Government have already given instructions for the release of the remaining Italian ships and considerable progress has been made in regard to the departure of German agents from Spain. The Spanish Government have also recently requested the Japanese Government to arrange for the early departure from Tangier of a member of the staff of the Japanese Embassy at Madrid, who has been residing in Tangier in recent months.
  Captain Gammans: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the German consul has left Tangier, there will be no German nationals of any sort left in this territory?
  Mr. Eden: The position is that a list of all German agents and German personages whom we wish to see removed is being given to the Spanish authorities. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of his supplementary question. I think the answer is "Yes," but I would like to make certain.
  Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether the British Government have to implement their side of the agreement, before the Spanish Government can satisfactorily implement their side?
  Mr. Eden: No, I do not put it like that. I think we go along together, and I think
  156
  the account which I have given to-day shows that we are going along together very well.
  Sir W. Davison: Do I understand that there is no danger of these German officials moving out of Tangier to Tetuan or somewhere along the coast, and carrying on their machinations outside?
  Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend may imagine, these problems have been a little bit in our minds.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind a time limit within which the German consul and his staff are expected to leave?
  Mr. Eden: As I have said, very likely, by now, the shield has been taken down, which means that the Consulate-General has ceased to function as such. I would not like to talk of a time-table, but I really think it is going well and, broadly speaking; satisfactorily to us and unsatisfactorily to the Germans.

  WAR CRIMES (UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION)
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to arrangements among the United Nations for the arrest and trial of war criminals.
  Mr. Eden: The House will recall the announcement last October of the setting up of a United Nations Commission for the investigation of war crimes. The Commission held its official inaugural meeting on 18th January last, and has been regularly at work since then.
  Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the trials taking place in North Africa by the French are linked up in any way with this position?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Will Sir Oswald Mosley be included in the list of war criminals?

  GERMANY

    Reparations
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that steps will be taken to prevent Germany after the war, by a pro-

    157
    cess of financial inflation, avoiding the payment of any reasonable reparations that may be fixed.
    Mr. Eden: I have at present no statement to make on the question of reparations. In any discussions with our Allies, the point raised by my hon. Friend will no doubt be borne in mind.
    Mr. Mander: In this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, and beware of, any "Pity the poor Germans" agitation?
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the Foreign Secretary also bear in mind that inflationary processes in Germany not only involve the dodging of reparations, but also affect our home market, and create unemployment in our own country?

    Peace Terms
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British Government's proposed peace terms to Germany have been communicated to the American Government; and if he will give an assurance that the British Government will not be committed in this matter until the terms have been approved by Parliament.
    Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member has in mind the terms on which hostilities are to be brought to an end, the position is that our proposals on this subject have been submitted to the European Advisory Commission, on which, as he is aware, the United States Government are represented. No draft of a treaty of peace has been communicated to the United States Government.
    Mr. Lawson: Does the statement of the Foreign Secretary mean that we have now abandoned once and for all the very mistaken formula of "unconditional surrender"?
    Mr. Eden: I do not know how the hon. Member gets that idea from my answer.

    Economic and Financial Disarmament
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Inter-Allied Committee have submitted a plan to His Majesty's Government for the economic and financial disarmament of Germany; whether these terms have been considered by the Supreme War Council for inclusion in the
    158
    armistice terms to Germany; and whether it is possible to publish the recommendations.
    Mr. Eden: The Inter-Allied Committee have not communicated any such plan to His Majesty's Government. The second and third parts of the Question do not, therefore, arise.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Government see that a condition of the peace terms is that Germany must give up the Kiel Canal, or make it an international highway?

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AND INTERNEES, FAR EAST
  Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any approach has been made to the Japanese Government to allow shipments of supplies and mail to be sent via Vladivostok to British prisoners of war in Japanese hands on the same lines as those allowed for U.S.A. war prisoners.
  Mr. Eden: By agreement with the United States Government, arrangements for despatching supplies via Vladivostok will apply equally to British and American prisoners of war and internees in Japanese hands. As regards mail, if the route via Vladivostok should be opened for correspondence for American prisoners of war and internees, it will be used also for correspondence for British prisoners of war and internees should it prove quicker than the existing route.
  Captain Gammans: Does the Foreign Secretary's answer mean that arrangements have actually been made to send supplies?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, that is right, and arrangements made with our American friends give us exactly the same facilities as they give to their own people.
  Captain Gammans: Does that apply to all territories where our prisoners are interned?
  Mr. Eden: I think that, in every single case in which we or the Americans are concerned, we give each other the same facilities as we have ourselves.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman state categorically that the Americans have not succeeded in

  159
  doing any better for their prisoners or interned civilians, than we have?
  Mr. Eden: We have been quite as successful as they have. There has been complete collaboration between us, but neither of us has been able to achieve what we wanted.

  BRITISH CONSULAR OFFICERS, UNITED STATES (EMOLUMENTS)
  Captain Longhurstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider raising the expenses allowance of British consuls-general and similar officials in the U.S.A. to enable them more adequately to represent the British point of view in that country.
  Mr. Eden: The emoluments of His Majesty's consular officers in the United States were reviewed in 1942, when considerable increases were granted to enable them to discharge their representational duties adequately. At the same time, a fund was placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Ambassador to meet exceptional expenditure incurred by consuls on representation. So far as I am aware, the present position in this respect is satisfactory, but I am always prepared to examine sympathetically any applications for further increases which may be recommended by His Majesty's Ambassador.
  Captain Longhurst: Is not the Minister aware that, for instance, in one great Middle Western city, where most citizens are of German descent, and where it is particularly important that the views of Germans should be heard, our Consul-General is not able even to belong to the principal club in the city?
  Mr. Eden: I do not know about that. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular city in mind, where he thinks there is not sufficient representation, perhaps he will let me know.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the same consideration should be given to His Majesty's junior Ministers as is given to consuls?
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister not send working-class representatives to some of these jobs, to join the trade unions in these particular areas?

  LIBERATED AREAS (HOUSING)
  Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will institute an inquiry into the practicability of Great Britain supplying, after the war, simple pre-fabricated houses to relieve the serious housing situation which will be caused in France and other allied countries by allied military and air action.
  Mr. Eden: The capacity of this country to produce pre-fabricated houses is likely to be fully occupied in meeting the needs of our own people. The supply of emergency housing in liberated areas is only part of the general question of how the essential needs of these areas, on liberation, can best be met. This general question is under consideration.
  Mr. Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by next winter thousands of French families may be homeless and in grievous danger of suffering through the action of our Forces; does he realise that it would be not only a practical form of help, but a sound basis for Anglo-French friendship, if such aid could be given; and will he look into the matter very seriously?
  Mr. McGovern: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are without houses?
  Mr. Eden: We all deeply regret that any devastation is to be caused in France, but many French people also understand that there has been very wide devastation in this country.

  YUGOSLAVIA (GENERAL MIHAILOVITCH)
  Flight-Lieutenant Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proofs he has received from General Velebit of the colloboration of General Mihailovitch and his supporters with the Germans; and, in view of the fact that General Mihailovitch is a member of the Government of King Peter, recognised by His Majesty's Government, if he has communicated these proofs either to King Peter or his Prime Minister so that they can refute these accusations or else take suitable action.
  Mr. Eden: General Velebit's visit to this country has been concerned solely with military matters. Political questions have not therefore been discussed with him.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that General Velebit has publicly stated that such proofs have been handed to the British Government, and can he explain why we in this country hear nothing of General Mihailovitch except from the United States?
  Mr. Eden: As regards General Velebit's public statement, I do not know to what my hon. and gallant Friend refers. He has not been seen either by me or anyone else at the Foreign Office, and his purpose here is military and not political.
  Mr. Riley: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether any representations at all have been received from Marshal Tito, directly or indirectly, complaining of the participation of General Mihailovitch in supporting the Quisling or German forces in Yugoslavia?
  Mr. Eden: Certainly, there have been a large number of comments by General Tito and others about General vitch. As regards whether we have received anything from him, I would like to have notice of the question, but I think it is quite likely.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that General Mihailovitch is fighting with the Germans and against us—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true."]—is it not about time that this anomalous situation was cleared up?
  Mr. Eden: It may be easy for the hon. Member to be absolutely dogmatic about these matters. I do not find it so easy, on our information, to be quite so dogmatic.
  Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is not an hon. Member who assumes a matter of fact of this kind, obliged to produce his evidence?
  Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member is responsible for what he says.
  Earl Winterton: Arising out of the charge made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the information given by the hon. Gentleman is correct, why it is that His Majesty's Government recognise General Mihailovitch and have a military representative with him?
  Mr. Eden: I have already dealt with that question. The Prime Minister ex-
  162
  plained in his last statement what the position was in respect of General Mihailovitch. I have said that I cannot be categorical like the hon. Member in what is a very obscure and difficult situation upon which we really cannot pronounce ex cathedra.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter which can be dealt with by question and answer.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, at the earliest opportunity.

  POLISH FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN (JEWISH DESERTERS, AMNESTY)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement on the amnesties granted to the Polish-Jewish soldiers who were recently court-martialled; if the amnesties amount to complete annulment of the sentences or only to a stay of execution; if they apply also to the three sailors who were arrested simultaneously with the soldiers and to one or two isolated absentees who have been arrested since; and if he has any information showing to what units the men concerned are to be sent for duty.
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. On 12th May the President of the Polish Republic signed an amnesty decree relating to a number of military offences, including desertions, committed by members of the Polish Armed Forces prior to May 3rd. I am informed by the Polish Government that the amnesty, in its application to Polish Jewish and other deserters, involves complete annulment of the sentences inflicted on them by court-martial. As regards the third part of the question, the amnesty applies in respect of all offences committed before 3rd May whether or not sentences had been inflicted prior to that date. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that the men have been sent to the central Polish depot and will be posted to units according to their qualifications and to military requirements.
  I would like to take this opportunity to say that His Majesty's Government warmly welcome the action of the Polish

  163
  Government in granting this amnesty. I strongly hope that this will mark the close of this unfortunate episode, and that the men affected will now go forward to play their part in the great operations which are impending. I am satisfied that the Polish authorities, for their part, have done and are doing all in their power to stamp out any trace of racial or religious discrimination in the Polish Forces.
  Mr. Driberg: While warmly welcoming also this act of just clemency by the Polish authorities, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be rather unfortunate if these men were to be sent back to the same units in which this unhappy situation arose; and, if the Polish authorities, of their own volition, agreed to transfers by individual application to the British Forces, would the British authorities put any obstacle in the way?
  Mr. Eden: I have made it quite clear that, in all the circumstances, we are not prepared to accept these men in the British Army.

  AEROPLANE, PORTUGAL (SALE ADVERTISEMENT)
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been called to the action of the Aljezur, Portugal, Council, in advertising for sale a Halifax bomber; whether this bomber is British property; and what action is being taken to prevent it becoming enemy property.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am informed that the aircraft offered for sale in Aljezur is a crashed German aircraft. No Halifax bomber has been advertised for sale in Portugal.

  AIRCRAFT FACTORY, STOCKTON-ON-TEES
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Aircraft Production why, shortly after his talk to a Stockton-on-Tees factory producing aeroplane propellers, orders were reduced and production cut down considerably whilst at the same time a London factory not previously producing them has received orders for propellers; and if he is aware that some of the labour
  164
  employed at the Stockton factory has now been declared redundant.
  The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Stockton-on-Tees factory are engaged on sub-contracts for the manufacture of wooden blades for aeroplane propellers according to a process developed by the London firm referred to. Owing to a change in the type of propellers required for certain aircraft it became necessary to reduce the rate of output of the wooden blades in question. Orders had already been placed with the London firm and these orders were cut down at the same time as those of the Stockton-on-Tees firm. Contrary to the suggestion in the hon. Member's Question no further orders were placed with the London firm. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative, but I understand that the redundant labour has been re-absorbed in other production.
  Mr. Edwards: Does the Minister realise how depressing it is to the people to whom he spoke in such inspiring terms to find that, shortly after his visit, the output per shift was halved and the cost, of course, correspondingly increased, and that those people were for long periods sitting around with hardly any work to do?
  Sir S. Cripps: I fully realise that it is always depressing when programmes are changed but, unfortunately, for the purpose of both economy and efficiency, it is necessary to change programmes.
  Mr. Edwards: Had not the Minister anticipated that change when he spoke to these people?
  Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

  NAVAL PERSONNEL, MALTA (AWARDS)
  Wing-Commander Grant-Ferrisasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make it clear that naval personnel resident in Malta, at least between the entry of Italy into the war and the collapse of Italian resistance, are entitled to the award of the 1939–43 Star or the Africa Star, whichever is appropriate?
  The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Service ashore in Malta qualifies for the Africa Star in the Royal Navy as it does in the Army. In the

  165
  Royal Navy, however, this Star will be given only to those who are not qualified for the 1939–43 Star. The dates between which the Africa Star can be earned are those of the entry of Italy into the war and the expulsion of the enemy from the continent of Africa.

  TANGANYIKA (COMPULSORY LABOUR)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to safeguard the conditions and wages of native conscript labour on the sisal estates, Tanganyika, in view of the recent considerable increase of such conscript labour; and will the wages and conditions of the labourers be improved as a result of the increase of approximately 20 per cent, in the price paid by the Government to the farmers.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The wages of compulsory labour are safeguarded by the Compulsory Service Ordinance, which lays down that they shall be not less than the ruling rates for voluntary labour in the area concerned. Other conditions are as prescribed in the Masters and Native Servants Ordinance, and the Administrative and Labour Departments have specific instructions to see that they are satisfactory. The new contract price is based on increases already effective in the cost of estate running (including medical services, housing and welfare), machinery, etc., and will not affect the wages of labour.
  Mr. Riley: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether the increases to which he refers really cover the full increase in the cost of living, and whether they include the increase of 20 per cent. in the price paid by the Government to the farmers?
  Colonel Stanley: I tried to explain in my answer that the new price is based on the increase in the cost, including wages, that has already taken place.

  SEYCHELLES LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken to provide for elected
  166
  members to the Seychelles Legislative Council; and whether such elected members will be elected by universal suffrage or on a property qualification and, if the latter, what will the qualification be.
  Colonel Stanley: As announced in the Seychelles by the Governor on 24th January this year, His Majesty's Government have decided that as soon as possible after the war they will agree to the introduction of elections in respect of up to 3 of the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, if in the meantime they are satisfied that elections are desired by a substantial and representative body of public opinion amongst that part of the community which will be affected. The franchise would be based on a property or income qualification plus a simple literacy qualification, the gross minimum income qualification being 700 Rupees per annum. In the meantime the number of nominated unofficial Members of the Legislative Council has been increased by three with a corresponding increase in the official membership.

  PALESTINE

    Wages Committee (Report)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state what steps have been taken to implement the Report of a wages committee in Palestine whose recommendations have been under active consideration for some time; and is he aware of the dissatisfaction prevailing with regard to the delay in dealing with the committee's Report.
    Colonel Stanley: Draft legislation has already been prepared by the Palestine Government on several of the measures envisaged in the wages committee report as part of the Government's general programme on labour legislation. Part of this draft legislation has, I understand, been circulated to local interested bodies in Palestine for their comments. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not aware of any dissatisfaction on the matters to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.

    Censorship
    Mr. Hamrnersleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the re-publication of a letter

    167
    appearing in "The Times," on 5th January, 1944, and signed by the hon. Member for East Willesden, has been prohibited by the Palestine censor.
    Colonel Stanley: I have no information but I am making inquiry of the High Commissioner for Palestine.
    Mr. Hammersley: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether he has received any representation from the Prime Minister as to why his Parliamentary answer to a Question on 30th July, 1941, has also been suppressed by the Palestinian censor? Will he make inquiries into this matter?
    Colonel Stanley: I certainly have had no communication from the Prime Minister on that particular subject.

  KENYA (INDIANS)
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the need to increase production of foodstuffs in Kenya, the Government of Kenya intends to permit Indians to occupy and cultivate lands reserved for white settlers but at present not under cultivation.
  Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, that is not the intention. The hon. Member will realise that the Indian community is drawn from trading and artisan, and not from agricultural, classes.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the land is lying idle, is it not possible to give those Indians who desire it, the use of the land? Although they may be drawn from the artisan class, they are as capable as artisans in this country of cultivating a piece of land and producing a good food growth on it.
  Colonel Stanley: I am anxious to increase food production in Kenya to the maximum extent, but I am quite certain this would have little, if any, practical effect, and would create a great deal of disturbance.
  Mr. Gallacher asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the strong resentment of Indians in Nairobi at the Defence Regulation of 1944 in so far as it prohibits or restricts the entry of Indians into Kenya and threatens that Indian re
  Colonel Stanley: I am aware that protests have been made by the Indian community against these regulations, which are similar to those introduced in Uganda and Tanganyika. The regulations apply to persons of all races whose admission is not essential to the war effort and there is no discrimination against Indians. They have been necessitated by the serious position with regard to housing and food, and are not intended to be permanent. Persons temporarily leaving East Africa are exempt from the regulations on their return, provided that they are normally resident there and have not been absent for more than two years.
  Mr. Gallacher: How can it be said that these regulations are in force because of the scarcity of housing and food, when there is a considerable amount of land available there on which these people could be growing food? The necessary housing could quite easily be made available.
  Colonel Stanley: It is not easy to provide the necessary housing accommodation because neither labour nor materials are available. Also, our experience is that the great majority of these Indians who come in, have nothing to do with agricultural work but go into trading or mechanical occupations.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that these regulations had to be made, in order to keep special preserves for the white settlers?
  Colonel Stanley: That is quite untrue. In fact these regulations were first made in Tanganyika, where the same considerations do not apply at all.

  JAMAICA

    Food Production
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to bring into effective use, in meeting food shortages in Jamaica, the 45 per cent. of cultivable farm lands shown by the census statistics, to be out of production.
    Colonel Stanley: There is a Compulsory Food Planting Order in force in Jamaica

    169
    under which each landowner of more than Ion acres is required to devote a specified acreage to food crops. The extent of the total acreage to be so used depends upon whether the land is worked by the owner or by tenants; and, if the latter, upon the terms of the tenancy. I do not know how much of the 45 per cent. of cultivable land stated to have been out of production at the time of the census may be covered by this arrangement and I am asking the Governor for a report.
    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider issuing a short report on the extent to which food crops have replaced export crops in the island of Jamaica?
    Colonel Stanley: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question down, I will certainly give him the information.

    Constitution (Discussions)
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the draft Constitution for Jamaica has been made available to the public in the Colony and when action will be taken to give effect thereto.
    Colonel Stanley: Informal and confidential discussions have already taken place with the elected and the unofficial nominated members of the Legislative Council. The Federation of Citizens' Associations and the People's National Party have been invited to join in these discussions, but the latter party have declined the invitation. The substance of the proposals will shortly be made available to the public in the Colony.
    Mr. Mathers: Is not the use of the word "already" rather curious, in view of the long time it has taken to deal with this matter? Will the Minister see that real progress is made, and will it be assisted by him?
    Colonel Stanley: It will, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any idea of the length and complexity of the necessary documents which have had to be prepared, and on which I want the opinion of the people of the island.
    Mr. Riley: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the reasons why the National People's Party are not to take part in the consultations?
    Colonel Stanley: Because, although one of their members is one of the elected Members, and therefore knows exactly what is in the document, they are not prepared to enter into consultation until the proposals have been published.

  SIERRA LEONE (MARAMPA MINES)
  Mr. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the accident rate in the Marampa mines for the period 1938–1942, as compared with the years 1933–1937.
  Colonel Stanley: I am asking the Governor of Sierra Leone for the figures and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Fraser: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that these figures have increased in recent years?
  Colonel Stanley: Until I get them, I am not aware of that.
  Mr. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provisions exist under the Concessions Ordinance, 1931, in Sierra Leone for the regulation of the conduct of mining operations in the Marampa mines; and whether the inspection of machinery introduced last year is being operated.
  Colonel Stanley: No provisions exist at present under the Concessions Ordinance for the regulation of mining operations at Marampa, but steps are being taken to amend the Ordinance for the reasons given in reply to a Question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight on the 20th October last. As regards the second part of the Question the provisions of the Machinery (Safe Working and Inspection) Ordinance apply to that part of the mining process at Marampa in which machinery is employed. Rules under this Ordinance were published on 1st July, 1943, and have been in operation since that date.

  TRANSPORT

    Canals
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has yet decided on a policy regarding the future use of canals in the North of England which have been discarded by the railway companies hitherto controlling them.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): If my hon. Friend is referring to the canals mentioned in the London Midland and Scottish Railway (Canals) Bill now before Parliament, I would remind him that, if in due course it is sent to a Select Committee of this House, it may be the subject of a Report by my Noble Friend. In these circumstances, I can make no statement on the subject of the Bill at the present stage. If, however, my hon. Friend has other canals in mind, perhaps he will be good enough to let me know.
    Mr. Bowles: Has my hon. Friend any objection to the canals being used by the delegates to the forthcoming Labour Party Conference?
    Mr. A. Edwards: In view of the fact that these canals have been allowed to get into serious disrepair and are no longer an asset to the railway companies but a liability, could not my hon. Friend's Department transfer them to the State at a nominal charge?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Each case varies. In some places I think there is no economic future for canals, but in other places there may be.

    Public Service Vehicles (Size Limitation)
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware of the hindrance to export trade due to S.R. & O., 1941, No. 398, Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations; and what steps he is proposing to take in order that this handicap to manufacturers engaged in the export trade may be removed.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If I have rightly understood my hon. Friend's Question, he desires that the limits at present imposed on the size of public service vehicles should be relaxed. I have received representations on the point from the organisations of manufacturers and operators who are principally concerned, and, as I said in the Debate on 5th May, it is now under consideration.
    Mr. Wakefield: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether he will expedite the decision in order that manufacturers may be in the best possible position to export as soon as hostilities cease?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will do my best to expedite the decision, but my hon. Friend will realise that many different factors are involved.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Foreign Governments, Great Britain (Periodicals)
    Mr. T. J. Brooksasked the Minister of Information how many periodicals and daily papers are published in England under the auspices of foreign Governments and organisations; what is the amount of paper used; and will be publish a list of these publications in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): The number of newspapers, news-bulletins, magazines and periodicals known to be published in this country in foreign languages or under foreign auspices excluding U.S. Army publications, is now 108. They consume approximately 14 tons of paper weekly. The list will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:
    Austrian.

    Austrian News.

    Jugend Voran.

    London Information.

    Young Austria (Junges Cesterreich).

    Zeitspiegel.

    Belgian.

    Anglo-Belgian Trade Journal.

    Belgique Indépendante (Onafhankelijk Belgie).

    Bulletin de l'Association des Etudiants Belges en G.B.

    Inbel.

    Marine.

    Message.

    Vers l'Avenir.

    De Zeeman.

    Chinese.

    China News Week.

    Kang Chan Chow Pao.

    Czech.

    Bulletin Ceckoslovenske Hospodarske Poradne v Londyne.

    Cechoslovak.

    Central European Observer.

    Ceskoslovenska Zena.

    Czech Cultural Review.

    Czech Labour Bulletin.

    Czech Newsletter.

    Einheit.

    Kruh.

    Listy Pratelum.

    Nase Noviny.

    Nova Svoboda.

    Nove Casy.

    Nove Ceskoslovensko.

    173

    Obzor.

    Poupe.

    Sozial Demokrat.

    Sozialistische Nachrichten.

    Spirit of Czechoslovakia.

    Students at War.

    Vojenske Rozhledy.

    Zpravodaj Telocvicne Jednoty 'Sokol.'

    Danish.

    Frit Danmark.

    Kurer.

    Dutch.

    De Bromtol.

    Het Kompas.

    Koopvaardij.

    De Roerganger.

    Voice of the Netherlands.

    Vrij Nederland.

    De Zeevaart.

    French.

    Bulletin de la Marine Francaise.

    Des Deux Côtés de Detroit.

    Les Cahiers Francais (Documents).

    Entente.

    France.

    La France.

    La France Libre.

    Les Francais de G.B.

    Tricolore (Lettre de la France Combattante).

    La Voix des Gens de Mer.

    Volontaire.

    German.

    Die Frau.

    Freie Deutsche Kultur.

    Freie Tribune (Freie Deutsche Jugend).

    I.F.T.U. German Bulletin.

    Sozialistische Mitteilungen.

    Die Zeitung.

    Greek.

    Eleftheros Hellene.

    Hellas.

    Vema.

    Hungarian.

    Hungarian News Survey.

    Latvian.

    Londonas Avize.

    Lithuanian.

    Iseivia Draugas.

    Luxembourg.

    Bulletin.

    Norwegian.

    Fram.

    Hilsen

    Maaneds Bladet.

    The Norseman.

    Norsk Maskintidende.

    Norsk Sjomannsforbund.

    Norsk Tidend.

    Polish.

    Army Doctor.

    Bellona.

    Co Slychac.

    Dziennik Polski.

    Free Europe.

    Mysl Lotnicza.

    Mysl Polska.

    Nowa Polska.

    Polish Economist.

    Polish Fortnightly Review.

    Polska na Morzach.

    Polska Prasa Obozowa.

    174

    Polska Walczaca.

    Robotnik Polski.

    The Right Review.

    Skryzdla.

    Sprawa.

    Swiatpol.

    Roumanian.

    Roumanian News Survey.

    Soviet.

    News Bulletin in Russian.

    Soviet Monitor.

    Soviet War News Daily.

    Soviet War News Weekly.

    Spanish.

    Amistad.

    Cernika.

    Juventud Espanola.

    Spanish News-sheet.

    Swedish.

    Church Bulletin.

    Swiss.

    Le Messager d'Endell Street.

    U.S.

    American Outpost.

    News & Features.

    Northern Ireland (Letters and Packets)
    Mr. Reakesasked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that gifts of 40 cigarettes dispatched from Wallasey to soldiers serving in Northern Ireland have been returned to sender with an instruction for a permit to be secured; and whether he will cause this regulation to be relaxed by the Postal and Telegraph Censorship, Permit Branch at Liverpool.
    Mr. Bracken: It was decided recently to extend to postal packets addressed to members of His Majesty's Forces serving in Northern Ireland the permit system which had been applied to similar packets addressed to civilians in July, 1940. This is to be regarded as an additional measure of security and I regret that I cannot authorise any relaxation.
    Mr. Reakes: Is the Minister aware that I have sent scores of packets of cigarettes to Italy, India, North Africa and other parts of the world without a permit being required? Why should there be this differentiation in treatment between overseas Forces and Forces in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman's tribute to his own generosity in distributing cigarettes—
    Mr. Reakes: They were distributed for an organisation in my constituency.
    Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman would not be so dogmatic if he knew, as we know, the methods used by the enemy in sending messages. This decision was not taken lightly; it was taken by the security authorities after the greatest consideration.
    Mr. Reakes: But is the Minister aware that there is a great difference between the censorship of these packets and making it necessary for distributors to get a permit? I am not objecting to censorship; that is quite a different matter.
    Mr. Bracken: It certainly is, but I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. If there is any question of how we could alleviate censorship in any way I will certainly consider it.
    Mr. Reakes: I am not asking for that.
    Mr. Pritt: Could not the Minister consider treating these cigarettes rather like books and publications, that is to say, licensing certain wholesalers to despatch them?
    Mr. Bracken: That point is dealt with in my answer to the next Question.
    Mr. Reakesasked the Minister of Information whether as the barring of greetings cards to Northern Ireland is unreasonable, he will have the regulation relaxed by the Postal and Telegraph Censorship, Permit Branch, Liverpool.
    Mr. Bracken: The sending of greetings cards to Northern Ireland is not barred but despatches must be made through a firm which holds a permit. The permit system was applied to Northern Ireland in July, 1940, as a measure of security and I am sure that the House will agree that now is not the time to consider any relaxation.

    British Information Service, United States
    Captain Longhurstasked the Minister of Information if he can see his way to increasing the expenses allowance of at least the senior British information officials in the United States to enable them more adequately to represent the British point of view in that country.
    Mr. Bracken: I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Political Broadcasts
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Minister of Information if he will make arrangements with the B.B.C. to enable the various political parties to explain on the wireless their post-war policies which are now being published, in order to enable the electorate to compare them with the proposals of the Government's four-year plan which has already been broadcast.
    Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. I have no intention of putting any pressure on the B.B.C. to start discussion of post-war policies on party lines.
    Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the Government are making plans for a General Election and have issued their post-war policy, has not the time come when all parties should have an opportunity of stating their views on the radio? Is this the decision of the B.B.C., or the Home Department, or the War Cabinet?
    Mr. Bracken: The Government are engaged at the moment in waging war and not in trying to win General Elections.
    Mr. Stokes: What about the Prime Minister's speech?
    Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member had better cease sneering, in order that his colleague may get an answer. I have not in any way interfered with the B.B.C.'s choice of speakers, but do not let the hon. Member run away with the notion that the speech made by the Prime Minister was a General Election speech.
    Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman says he does not put pressure on the B.B.C. in the selection of speakers on political topics. Who then selects those speakers, and on what basis are they selected? May we have a specific assurance that he never interferes at any time?
    Mr. Bracken: Certainly. The "Week in Westminster" speakers are selected by the B.B.C. When Ministers wish to make speeches on policy, they ask the B.B.C. for an opportunity of doing so. I think the House will agree with that. I never ask the B.B.C. to put on any specific speaker.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the B.B.C. are responsive to requests by Ministers who wish to speak on political topics, which may be

    177
    controversial, may we ask whether if any Member makes a request to be allowed to broadcast on a political topic there will be a favourable response?
    Mr. Bracken: There are 615 Members in the House and if they are all going on the B.B.C. the public will go on strike.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the Minister accuses me of sneering, may I ask if he is aware that I was merely stating a fact, whereas he was evading it?
    Mr. Granville: Can we have an assurance that, if the B.B.C. invite any party to broadcast their post-war plans, he will not interefere with the decision?
    Mr. Bracken: The B.B.C. have an advisory council on which all parties are represented and to which they will doubtless refer the matter.

    Atlantic Charter and Moscow Declaration (Publicity)
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Information if meetings are arranged by his Department to publicise the Atlantic Charter and Moscow Declaration.
    Mr. Bracken: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 1st March to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke). The main purpose of Ministry of Information meetings continues to be the supply of factual information about the war.
    Dr. Thomas: In view of the fact that the Ministry has stated that it does not allow the discussion of the Atlantic Charter at its meetings because it is a matter of post-war reconstruction, would the right hon. Gentleman say what has made him change his policy in the last year or two?
    Mr. Bracken: I do not think the Ministry of Information has changed its policy in any way.

  PAPER (ALLOCATION)
  Mr. T. J. Brooksasked the Minister of Production what increased allocation of newsprint has been allowed to newspapers during the last 12 months; and what increase of paper has been allocated for wrapping food during the last 12 months.
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): The allocation of newsprint to newspapers was increased by approximately 11½ per cent. from 27th September, 1943. There has been a decline since October, 1943, of 8 per cent. in the allocations of paper and board which are specifically made for food wrappings.
  Mr. Brooks: Could the Minister tell us whether there is a sufficient supply of paper for shops, as it is very inconvenient for people to have to take home unwrapped goods? There is a great shortage of paper, and what there is, is of very poor quality.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I can only say that we have had no serious complaint upon the subject.
  Mr. Shinwell: Could not the Government issue fewer White Papers?
  Mr. Bowles: Can the Minister say whether all the increase of 11½ per cent. in newsprint allocation has been taken up by the newspapers?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Virtually, all.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Are we to take it that if the Minister does receive serious complaints, he will respond to these requests?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I can only respond within the limits of my ability. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that very often the weekly haddock goes home wrapped up in a leading article.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does not the Minister think it preferable that butchers' meat should be wrapped in white paper, instead of in old newspapers which are collected weekly from customers?
  Mr. Lyttelton: It is preferable, and we are doing all we can in the matter.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Milk-Weighing Machines
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Food why his Department refuses to support applications made by owners of pasteurising dairies for licences to acquire milk-weighing machines, having in mind the increasing shortages in deliveries of milk received from farmers and the fact that weights and measures inspectors consider that the only method of checking this evil is the installation of milk-weighing machines at all dairies.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I regret that owing to the need to conserve labour and material we can only support applications for new weighing machines when they are needed to replace existing ones or for necessary extensions of existing weighing facilities.
    Mr. Barnes: If the Minister is in this difficulty, what other steps does he propose to take to stop this growing abuse?
    Colonel Llewellin: Most milk is measured and not weighed, and there are plenty of facilities for firms buying milk to measure it.

    Café, Wolverhampton (Supplies)
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Food the reason why food supplies to the Cosy Corner Café, Heath Town, Wolverhampton, have been heavily cut down; whether he has considered the petition on the subject from 132 customers; whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused and will he take steps to remedy the situation.
    Colonel Llewellin: The supplies to this café were reduced by the local food office following a substantial decrease in the number of meals served. If the proprietor of the café had approached the food officer, which I understand he has not done, and explained the position to him, certain adjustments would have been made. These have now been effected.
    Mr. Mander: Will the Minister bear in mind that anything he can do to ease the situation will be greatly appreciated by some of the strongest supporters of the war and the Government?
    Mr. Shinwell: Could the Minister suggest to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) which cosy corner he should occupy?
    Colonel Llewellin: I like to have the hon. Member sitting where I can see him.
    Mr. McGovern: On a point of Order. In view of the inconvenience caused to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and other Parliamentary Private Secretaries, Mr. Speaker, would you consider the installation of an escalator or a rope?

    Fruit Prices, West Kent
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Food whether, when fixing
    180
    the prices of fruit grown in the West Kent area, he will take into consideration the losses suffered by these farmers last year and other circumstances of which he has been informed and this year fix prices for their fruit which will give them an adequate return on the labour and capital involved.
    Colonel Llewellin: I do not agree that the prices fixed last season were too low. Officers of my Department and of the Agricultural Departments are meeting growers' representatives this week to see whether the prices fixed for this season need to be altered on account of the recent frosts.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the sudden disastrous change in the situation caused by the frost and the threat to the livelihood of hundreds of farmers and smallholders, will the Minister attend a meeting upstairs with me at 1.45?
    Colonel Llewellin: I think we have made proper arrangements. We have got the proper negotiating people coming up to discuss the matter with officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and my Department on Friday.

    Tea Ration (Old Age Pensioners)
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Food if he can estimate the amount of extra tea which would be involved if an additional ration of a quarter pound monthly were allowed to old age pensioners of 70 years of age and over on production of their pension book.
    Colonel Llewellin: From 7½ to 8 million lbs. of tea per annum.
    Sir I. Albery: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend consider it possible to make this concession?
    Colonel Llewellin: No. If we were to make the concession, which is difficult because of the supply situation, I do not know that it would be possible to limit it absolutely to people who have the old age pension.
    Mr. Driberg: What percentage of the total consumption of tea in this country is represented by the figure quoted in the Minister's answer?
    Colonel Llewellin: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.
    Captain Cobb: Would it be possible to make the concession if the consumption

    181
    of tea in Government offices were cut down by half?

    Condemned Fish (Transport)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the fish despatched from Aberdeen to Manchester, on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May, and subsequently condemned as unfit for human consumption, was landed in a stinking condition; whether he will take steps to prevent this happening in the future; and whether he will also take steps to prevent the wastage of valuable transport facilities, including fuel and rolling-stock, involved in hauling rotten fish about the country.
    Colonel Llewellin: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir"; the remainder therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that I was in Aberdeen on 1st May and the stench was so appalling that no one could go near the harbour?

    Milk Distribution
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food whether he will consult those engaged in the milk distributing trade before coming to a decision on the postwar plans for this business.
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food why the co-operative movement is able to retail milk all over London and the big cities while other retailers are confined to restricted areas.
    Colonel Llewellin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell) on 22nd June last.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make inquiries from those engaged in the distributive trade, because they consider that they are not being at all fairly treated?
    Colonel Llewellin: This arrangement was made after discussion with the retail dairymen and the co-operatives independently and with representatives of both at the Central Milk Distributors' Committee where it was approved.
    Sir W. Smithers: And the co-ops won.

    Soft Drinks Manufacture (Sugar Allocation)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Food, why, when it was decided to increase the sugar allocation of certain squash manufacturers, no steps were taken to make part of the additional supplies of sugar available to those squash manufacturers whose licences had been revoked.
    Colonel Llewellin: The increased allocation to squash manufacturers to which my hon. Friend refers is not the result of an additional supply of sugar being made available to the industry as a whole, but is the result of a re-distribution among the established members of the soft drinks industry. No question arises, therefore, of making any allocation of sugar to firms who had no established pre-war usage.

  HOUSING

    Prefabricated Houses
    Captain Gammansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works if it is proposed to exhibit the prototypes of the new fabricated houses in provincial towns.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): After the various improvements contemplated by my Ministry as well as the suggestions made by hon. Members and others have been incorporated in the prototype, my Noble Friend proposes to send prototypes to each region. This will of course take some time.
    Captain Gammans: Does not the hon. Gentleman want any suggestions made from the provinces?
    Mr. Hicks: A number of people from the provinces have already visited the house.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does not my hon. Friend think it would be better to assure local authorities that he will give them opportunities of seeing the house in their area instead of inviting them to come long distances to see it?
    Mr. Hicks: That is the nature of the answer I have just given.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Apart from the invitation to local authorities to send one or two people to see the house, has any

    183
    communication been sent advising them whether there is any action that they can conveniently take with regard to the provision of these houses?
    Mr. Hicks: That must be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health.
    Commander Agnew: In the model houses to be erected in the provinces will there be a place to stow a pram?
    Mr. Hicks: Yes.
    Mr. Hugh Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman see that at least one house is erected and lived in?
    Mr. Hicks: That is the object of building them.
    Mr. Higgsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works what is the anticipated useful life of the experimental steel house erected at Pimlico.
    Mr. Hicks: As my Noble Friend has stated in another place, these houses will be publicly owned and licensed for a period only. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the period fixed will not exceed the useful life of the house.
    Mr. Higgs: May I ask the Minister to reply to my Question?
    Mr. Hicks: I regret that I am unable to give any guarantee beyond what I have stated in my reply.
    Mr. Higgs: Are we going to embark on an expenditure of £75,000,000 per annum and not know how long the houses and the equipment will last?
    Mr. Petherick: Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House the usual life of an ordinary house?
    Mr. Hicks: It is rather difficult to say, but I could give my private opinion. This house was conceived with a view to tiding over a difficulty between the termination of hostilities and the time when ordinary building can come more fully into operation. It is an emergency house and is not intended to last permanently, but it will certainly have the life of ten years which was originally contemplated for it. It will depend largely on how it is treated. If a house is treated kindly, it will last much longer than if it is treated unkindly.
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Minister of Health if it has been decided to commence quantity production of prefabricated steel-framed houses of the type known as the Churchill house, which has been exhibited in London, before practical tests of living experience in summer and winter conditions have been applied.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The prototype of the emergency house has not yet been approved and no decision to begin quantity production has been taken. As a result of many valuable comments and suggestions it is intended that it shall be modified in certain respects, but the Government would lay themselves open to severe criticism if they delayed the programme for the production of emergency houses in the manner suggested in the Question. My Noble Friend the Minister of Works has throughout had the scientific advice and collaboration of the Building Research Station, which is fully qualified to deal with all such problems.
    Mr. Barstowasked the Minister of Health if he will hold up the production of temporary steel houses until this House has had an opportunity of discussing their suitability for housing the people of this country.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I would refer to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). As hon. Members are aware, the prototype has been open for inspection by Members and views expressed by them will be considered before any decision is taken as to its approval which must precede any decision as to production. Arrangements have, I understand, now been made to enable my Noble Friend the Minister of Works to meet interested Members of all parties and to give them a full account of the design and construction of the emergency house.

    Cottages, Suffolk (Cost)
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Minister of Health the total cost of the cottages erected at Cratfield, Suffolk, and the item for the transportation of labour to and from this building site; and whether drinking water is available there.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The contractors' final accounts have not yet been received by

    185
    the local authority, but it is estimated that the total cost of the four cottages will be approximately £4,720, of which £376 will be for the transport of labour. A common supply of drinking water is available for the village as a whole, including the cottages in question.
    Mr. Granville: How is it that this high cost of transportation of labour comes into these tenders? How are we to expect agricultural workers to afford the rent if transport is to cost £300 or £400?
    Miss Horsbrugh: This is a matter for the Ministry of Labour. The labour had to be conveyed daily from Ipswich, which is 26 miles away. The costs were: Travelling time, £141; overtime, £61; and designated craftsmen, £10. These are all extra to the contract price.
    Mr. Granville: Would not better results be obtained if small local builders were allowed to contract?
    Miss Horsbrugh: That question should be referred to the Ministry of Labour.

    Grates (Committee's Report)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether the Solid Fuel Installations Committee, which was appointed to make recommendations regarding grates in houses and flats, has yet reported; and how soon will its Report be made available to local authorities and builders.
    Mr. Hicks: The report is in the hands of the printers and will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. Keeling: Is my hon. Friend aware that this report was printed in January and marked "confidential"? Why has it been withheld so long from publication?
    Mr. Hicks: I am aware that it was printed early in the year. It is no responsibility of my Ministry that it has not been made available.
    Mr. Keeling: Whose responsibility is it?
    Mr. Hicks: I am unable to give any further reply.

  LAUNDRY FACILITIES, OXFORD
  Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the complaint of the
  186
  Oxford Division Medical War Committee about the system of priorities whereby civilian work has to take last place; and whether he will consider their suggestions that special laundry facilities be provided for the Services and hospitals by mobile units, or otherwise.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The complaint referred to in the Question has not yet reached me, but laundries have been advised that, whenever they cannot handle all the work sent to them, they should observe the following order of priority: First, hospital work, both Service and civilian; second, all other Service work; third, contracts for public services, schools, shipping, hotels, etc.; and fourth, civilian household work. All available Service mobile laundry units are already fully engaged on Army work.
  Mr. Hogg: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the effect upon health and sanitation of the long delays which are taking place is serious, and will he see whether further facilities can be made available for the Services and Government contracts?
  Captain Waterhouse: I am well aware of the grave inconvenience which the laundry shortage is causing, and we are doing our best in difficult circumstances to remedy it.

  COALMINING (ENEMY PRISONERS OF WAR)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent enemy prisoners of war in this country have been put to work in the coal mines; and is it proposed to increase the number of those employed in this way.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): It is not the intention of the Government to employ prisoners of war in the coal mines. The position of the Government on this matter was made clear by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma in a Debate in another place on 26th October, 1943.
  Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that the enemy are using 20,000 of our men in

  187
  their coal mines, why are we not taking advantage of this great reservoir of labour when there is a great shortage of labour in the coal mines? Cannot the matter be reconsidered?
  Mr. Smith: This matter has been reconsidered but, at the moment, we have enough trouble without adopting this suggestion.
  Mr. McGovern: Is not the privilege of working in our coal mines especially reserved for British subjects?
  Mr. George Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the miners of Great Britain do not want the Germans down the mines because it would be too dangerous for our chaps?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of reports in the newspapers to the effect that a report on the Empire Conference is to be issued in the next 48 hours, a statement on the Conference will be made in the House in the near future?
Mr. Eden: The statement to which my hon. Friend refers will be issued by the five Prime Ministers and, therefore, will appear over their five names. As regards the question of whether any statement will be made in the House, it is likely that, in the Debate next week, the Prime Minister will take the opportunity of elaborating certain aspects at any rate of the results of the work that has been done. I do not think I ought to enlarge on it more than that.
Mr. Bowles: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered extending the time for the Debate to-day?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I have considered it and I have made inquiries through the usual channels. I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it will probably not be necessary because I understand that there is no desire to make very long speeches; also, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to intervene fairly early in the Debate, and we think that his intervention will slightly curtail the discussion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY [16th May]

    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1944
    EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR
    Resolution reported:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [16th May]
  Resolution reported:
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the services of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Assheton.

  WAYS AND MEANS [16th May]
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL,
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  Mr. Malson: I beg to move,
  "That this House would welcome the setting up of a Select Committee, without power to send for persons, papers or records, whose duty it should be to carry on a continuous examination of all Statutory Rules and Orders and other instruments of delegated legislation presented to Parliament; and to

  203
  report from week to week whether in the opinion of the Committee any such instrument is obscure or contains matter of a controversial nature or should for any other reason be brought to the special attention of the House."
  Sir Herbert Holdsworth: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is your intention, Mr. Speaker, to allow a wide Debate covering not only the Motion but all the Amendments?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the Motion and the Amendments will be covered by the Debate, except the last one, which is outside the Motion, namely, that in the name of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), in line 7, at end, to add:
  "provided that there be also set up a Select Committee to consider to what extent law-making by the Executive could be avoided by devolution on to subordinate democratic legislative bodies."
  Mr. Silverman: On that point of Order, may I ask you whether it is your intention to call the Amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends? I think it raises a question that probably would not be covered in the Debate, namely, whether the proposal in the Motion will extend to all Regulations or only those of a specified kind?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not my intention to call that Amendment. I think the subject can be covered quite well in the general Debate.
  Mr. Molson: It has been a feature of the history of this House that, while it has been conservative in maintaining its authority and consistent in defending the liberties of the people, it has always seen that it should be ready to adapt its methods and to amend its procedure in order to meet new conditions. For example, in the 19th century, when there was a great increase in legislation, the procedure of the House was altered, and the number of questions put on the passage of a Bill was reduced from 14 to four; and again, when the Irish Party developed the policy of obstruction, the Closure was introduced which, only a short time before, would have been regarded as subversive of the rights of the House. Just as Parliament has been willing in the past to restrict its activities in
  204
  order to facilitate the passage of business, so, in my submission, there are new conditions arising which require it, in some degree, to extend its activities. The Motion calls for the new machinery which is needed, if we are to retain the old control over legislation which is necessary in the new conditions of to-day. It is no new thing for this House to delegate rule-making powers to the Executive. As early as 1337, the Statute of the 11th year of Edward III, Chapter I, provided for the banning of the export of wool from this country.
  "till the King and his Council do otherwise provide."
  We come down to the present time. Part III of the Education Bill, which this House passed last week, will come into effect when an Order in Council is issued by His Majesty. Therefore, there is nothing unusual or against precedent in great powers being delegated to the Executive in our Statutes, but if it is intended to continue and to extend the policy of making substantive Orders and Regulations under the authority of a Statute, it will be necessary for this House to set up new machinery, if we are not to be delegating not merely authority but sovereignty itself.
  There are a number of reasons why delegated legislation is not only desirable but necessary. In the first place, it economises the time of the Legislature. Lord Thring, the first holder of the office of Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury, wrote, in 1877, in his "Practical Legislation":
  "The above-mentioned matters"—
  that is, procedure, etc.
  "—should either be enacted in a Schedule or, what is far better when possible be left to he prescribed by a court or department of the Government. … The adoption of the system of confining the attention of Parliament to material provisions only, and leaving details to be settled departmentally, is probably the only mode in which Parliamentary government can be carried on. The province of Parliament is to decide material questions affecting the public interest; and the more procedure and subordinate matters can be withdrawn from their cognisance, the greater will be the time afforded for the consideration of more serious questions involved in legislation."
  That quotation is important, because it is the doctrine which is still followed by Lord Thring's successors. It is, I think, a sound doctrine, for not only does it economise the time of Parliament but also

  205
  it results in the Statutes being shortened. If I may quote a living Parliamentary draftsman, Sir William Graham-Harrison, he says:
  "It is the only way in which to avoid the intolerable prolixity of the 18th century Statutes."
  In the second place, delegated legislation is flexible. It can limit the applicability of legislation by time, location, ownership, age or otherwise, and all these limitations are able to be changed at short notice. The same considerations applied in ancient Greece, and Plato says in Book VI of his "Laws":
  "Rules and up-to-date amendments must be made from year to year by persons who have constant experience from year to year in these things and who are taught by practice, until a satisfactory code is finally agreed upon to regulate such proceedings."
  In the third place, the value of delegated legislation is that, in a sudden emergency, it enables the Legislature to dispense with long deliberation and to arm the Executive with the special powers that are needed. There was an example of that in the Economy Act of 1931 and in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.
  In the fourth place, where a Legislature is forced to influence the economic life of the country by physical measures, powers of this kind are almost inevitable. When we are using duties, quotas, licences, bounties and various other expedients it is obvious that some power has to be given either to the Treasury or the Tariff Advisory Committee to give effect to the policy of Parliament.
  Up to this point I hope that I may have been carrying with me the agreement of the Home Secretary. I have tried to show that I am not in any way hostile to delegated legislation as such. As the scope of legislation in the last 40 years has been greatly extended and has included national health and the insurance scheme, responsibility for the training of labour, unemployment insurance and relief of poverty, and the closer supervision of agriculture and industry, while the fiscal system has been adapted to serve a protectionist purpose, delegated legislation of this kind has become increasingly necessary. Nor do I disagree with the Home Secretary when he anticipates a further increase in delegated legislation when we come to pass the Reconstruction Bills which will be necessary. But if that
  206
  be so, then the case for such a Committee as I am asking for, which is strong now will then be stronger still. It is worth noting that there were more Statutory Orders and Rules in 1920 than in any one of the years of the last war, and it may prove to be the case that that experience will be repeated.
  We have already had two Debates upon this subject and the Home Secretary has made two speeches, one on 26th May and one on 15th July, in which he indicated that at that time the Government were not fully persuaded of the desirability or need of a committee of this kind. The first argument he used was that the scrutiny of delegated legislation by a committee as was recommended in the Donoughmore Report might be of arguable value in peace time but that in war time it would be too dilatory. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Committee would delay matters at all. In suitable cases the Order or Regulation would come into effect exactly as it does at the present time, but during the 40 days when it is open to this House to Pray against the regulation, there would be this special Committee whose duty it would be to scrutinise it.
  Colonel Sir Charles McAndrew: Lord Donoughmore suggested a Standing Committee, on which the minimum number is 30 Members. Does not the hon. Member think that would be much too big?
  Mr. Molson: I am not following in all details the Donoughmore Report, and the exact size of the Committee would naturally be a matter for the decision of this House if we agreed upon the principle. The Home Secretary said on 26th May:
  "The House has delegated to the Government complete legislative power over a certain field, subject to certain Parliamentary checks. … You delegate or you do not … the legislative power is delegated and it is important that either the House or the Government shall be clearly responsible."—[OFFICTAL REPORT, 26th May, 1943; Vol. 389, c. 1655–6.]
  Again I reply to my right hon. Friend that the setting up of this Committee would not in any way affect the relative responsibilities of the Government and of the Legislature. It would only mean that machinery would be set up to do effectively what we are supposed to be doing at the present time. On 15th July my

  207
  right hon. Friend was replying to some arguments which I had put forward. I had given some examples from past legislation of how the new system might be expected to work. He called them precedents and argued that they were not precedents at all. I would prefer to call them analogies. Perhaps I may be allowed to argue that in point of fact they really have a very close bearing upon what we are asking for to-day.
  The first example is the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. Under Section 29 of that Act there were certain Orders which admittedly were only capable of coming into effect during the first two years when that Act was on the Statute Book, and the Minister had certain powers. It was provided that:
  "The Minister on publication of notice of a proposal to make an Order under Paragraph r of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall send the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons … and if such Chairman reports to the Minister that he is of the opinion that the proposals of the Draft Order are of such a character or magnitude that they ought not to be proceeded with without the authority of Parliament, the Minister shall not make the Order unless or until the Draft Order has been approved by Resolution."
  The next example I would quote is Standing Order 212 of the House of Lords, which provides:
  "At the commencement of every Session, a Standing Committee shall be appointed to which all Special Orders shall stand referred. The expression 'Special Order' means any Order in Council, Departmental Order, Rule, Regulation, Scheme or other similar instrument … presented to or laid in draft before the House where an affirmative is required before the Order or any part thereof becomes effective."
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that that Standing Order of the House of Lords has seriously handicapped him. It has been used on occasions and it is certainly a valuable constitutional safeguard. It is, I think, in one important respect misconceived. It applies to those Orders which have to be laid before the House. What my hon. Friends and I are chiefly concerned about are those Orders which come into effect automatically without being laid before the House unless a Prayer is carried, in which case they are annulled. Therefore, our Motion is so drafted that all those Measures which under the present system are apt to slip through without
  208
  being scrutinised by anyone in particular shall be scrutinised by the Select Committee.
  In the third place there is the case of ecclesiastical Measures. The Home Secretary said that they were not relevant to this proposal. I venture to think that that procedure is extremely relevant. Largely because of the pressure upon Parliamentary time, this House, under the Enabling Act, 1919, delegated the power of legislating for the Church of England to the Church Assembly. When such a Measure is passed in the Church Assembly it does not come into effect until it has been approved by this House, although this House has no power of amending the Measure. In 1919 Parliament did not say with the Home Secretary "You delegate or you do not delegate." No, it set up a special Ecclesiastical Committee charged with the express responsibility to report to this House with regard to any Measure passed by the Assembly what the effect would be upon His Majesty's subjects:
  "After considering the Measure the Committee shall draft a Report thereon stating the nature and legal effect of the Measure and its views as to the expediency thereof, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects."
  We had an example of this procedure as recently as 10th March. A Measure was passed by the Church Assembly with reference to livings in the Church of England which did affect the parson's freehold, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) opposed the approval of that Measure on the ground that it not only affected the parson's freehold but would injuriously affect the rights of many parsons now serving as chaplains with His Majesty's Forces. A Report had been presented to this House by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which, after considering those points, recommended that the Measure should be approved. I am confident that the House would not have passed that Measure as easily as it did, on a Friday, if it had not known that the Measure had been carefully scrutinised in a judicial spirit by a Select Committee of this House.
  Among those who have given special attention to the matter of delegated legislation there are many who think that we should rely upon the courts to protect the people's liberty. I venture to think that that is an error. The courts are only suited for the purpose of deter-

  209
  mining what is legal and what is illegal. What we are primarily concerned about are Orders and Regulations issued by the Executive which are perfectly lucid and legal but which are bureaucratic, vexations, embarrassing and harassing to the subject. Whether or not this House should approve an Order of that kind is a political decision which only a Legislature is competent to take. It is at this point that I venture to differ from the Report, entitled "The State and Personal Liberty," issued by the Liberal National Council. They complain that
  "cases like the Point of Ayr Collieries … have established that the courts are, or … consider themselves to be quite powerless to inquire into the Minister's reasons for taking control of an undertaking or for requisitioning property."
  I must say frankly that when a Minister of the Crown has exercised his executive discretion to take over a colliery that seems to me to be essentially a matter, for which he should be held accountable by this House and not by any court of law. It is manifestly impossible for any judge to consider whether the Minister, having all the facts of the case in his mind, exercised his discretion in a reasonable way. That is a matter essentially for this House, and it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the taking over of the Point of Ayr Collieries was debated in this House. That is why we are concentrating at the present time on the securing by this House of control over delegated legislation.
  Mr. Silverman: I follow the hon. Member's point very well, but would he say how he applies the last observation to the principle, which he stated earlier in his speech, that judicial questions should be determined judicially? If you have the exercise by the Minister of powers which he has had delegated to him by the House in a particular case, and the question is whether in that case the Minister has acted fairly, in accordance with his powers, or unfairly or unreasonably, is not that a judicial question which you cannot determine fairly in a political Assembly where votes are cast on general political considerations and not within the narrow limits of a particular case?
  Mr. Molson: When I used the word "judicial," I only meant that in this House and in a Select Committee appointed by this House, the evidence
  210
  on both sides should be weighed in a fair and reasonable manner. In some quarters this Motion has been criticised on the ground that it is too moderate, but we have tried to meet all the points of substance which were made in the Home Secretary's speeches on the two previous occasions. In the first place, we have not asked for this Committee to have any executive power. In the second place, we have not asked for it to have any delaying power. We ask only that it should report to this House what it considers to be any Order or Regulation which is deserving of the special attention of this House. In the third place, we have not proposed that it should have power to send for persons or papers. We did feel that there was substance in the Home Secretary's argument that in the middle of a war it was not reasonable to ask that Ministers and busy civil servants should appear before the Committee unless they wished to do so and, moreover, we did not really think that those powers were necessary to enable the Committee to do its work. It is for those reasons that I should have been unable to support—had it been your intention, Mr. Speaker, to call it—the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). We do not desire that this Committee should have any power to delay the coming into effect of a Regulation, and it would, as far as my reading goes, be a complete breach of precedent if any Committee of this House were given the power to interfere with the discretion of the Executive and to require that any order issued should be suspended until this House had passed judgment upon it.
  Moderate as our Motion is in many ways, it does, in one respect, perhaps, go somewhat beyond the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee. The Donoughmore Committee said that Committee would not report on the merits of the Regulation or Rule, but would report upon the specified seven points. That, of course, had led to debate as to what is the meaning of the merits of an Order, and it is extremely difficult to draw a clear distinction between the merits of an Order and its form, but there might well be Orders issued by the Government, perfectly legal and lucid, but which were, in the opinion of the Committee, of such importance that the attention of the House should be drawn to them. On 26th May

  211
  last the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) referred to Regulation 47A under which a seaman who had already been punished under the Merchant Shipping Act, could be tried and punished a second time for the same offence under a certain Regulation. That is just the sort of case where a Select Committee of this kind would certainly say that the attention of the House was warranted.
  It is in matters of this- kind that we, as Members of Parliament, must represent the point of view of our constituents. Increasingly, we are legislating into the very homes of the people. We are doing so with benevolent intent, and, because we are in touch with our constituents, we know, or think we know, how far they wish us to go. But it is a very different matter if we are to allow civil servants, under delegated powers, to carry that same legislation further, and it is obviously most desirable that we should exercise a strict control over their tireless zeal and efficiency. We must, indeed, speak for the toad under the administrative harrow and be on the look-out for Regulations which, highly convenient to the bureaucrats, will be regarded as intolerably burdensome to the people. This is a case, in my submission, where we require to have a new piece of machinery in order to maintain the effective control of the House of Commons over what is taking place.
  There was, recently, a case which came before the courts where one unhappy man was fined for giving his own daughter two lbs. of pork which he had obtained from one of his own pigs and, as the judge observed on that occasion, it was probably the first case of its kind in the history of this country where any father had been punished for feeding one of his own children. On another occasion, under another of these Orders, the producer of a doughnut sprinkled sugar on the top of the doughnut. He could quite legally have put the sugar into the admixture from which he made the doughnut, but to sprinkle it was an offence, and he was duly tried and convicted of that offence. Things of that kind make it essential for us to maintain some measure of control over all this delegated legislation. We now have two fat volumes of these Orders and Regulations issued year by year, and it is really impossible for this
  212
  House, with all its other duties, to scrutinise every one of these Orders. It is only a piece of machinery to appoint a Select Committee of this House to scrutinise them before they are allowed to become permanent legislation.
  The Home Secretary is an able administrator, but even he, on one or two occasions, has found himself a little out of touch with public opinion. But because he showed courage, this House has supported him on each occasion. If he is a good House of Commons man, I believe my right hon. Friend will welcome the proposals that we are making to-day. It is desirable that in these matters we should be able to express the point of view of our constituents. It is desirable that this House should retain its control over legislation. It is desirable that we should share with the executive the responsibility for what is being done. If the right hon. Gentleman is a good democrat and a shrewd administrator, I believe he will realise that in these proposals we are not weakening, but rather strengthening, the Executive because we hope thereby to make sure that it never gets out of touch with public opinion and with the feeling of this House.
  Commander Bower: I beg to second the Motion.
  This, I hope, will be, largely, a backbenchers' field day. I do not think it will be any the worse for that, because I believe that this Debate reflects the opinion, which is becoming very widely held all over the country, that this matter wants looking into. The Motion, with over 140 signatures, is supported by Members of all parties, although it is, perhaps, natural that the majority of the signatures are those of Members of the party to which I belong, which has always considered the maintenance of our ancient institutions one of its most important principles. This Motion is the result of a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, which arose into the political atmosphere about three years ago when a small handful of Members, of whom I am glad to say I was one, decided that this war-time spate of Rules, Orders and Regulations was clearly becoming something of a menace to the liberties of our people. At first, it was no easy task for those who shouldered the burden of looking at Regulations such as 18AA under which political organisations

  213
  can be banned, 18B, under which the Habeas Corpus Act is, to all intents and purposes, suspended, and 2 (d), that sword of Damocles which hangs over the heads of our independent Press. We found that our activities were far from popular in many quarters and we were even warned, quite seriously, by our friends that if we went on with this sort of thing, we should run the danger of identifying ourselves with Fascist sympathies. In certain irresponsible quarters, that suggestion has actually been made, but in respectable quarters, our work has received recognition, and we hope to find some reward in the form of a concession from the Government to-day.
  The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said that delegated legislation is not new, and it is not delegated legislation, as such, to which we object, because the growing pre-occupation of the Government with the lives of the people makes a lot of it quite inevitable and even desirable. This House cannot possibly work out all the details of big legislative measures, but I think the House will agree that we must always have in mind one important fact and that is that the practice of delegating legislation does, and must, entail a partial abandonment by Parliament of its legislative functions and, indeed, of its supremacy. It goes even farther than that. It does appear that Parliament, in the course of delegating wide powers to Ministers, has, from time to time, delegated to them and their subordinates power to deprive citizens of their access to the courts of law. We regard that as being a very serious matter which should receive attention from every Member of this House. As the Donoughmore Report, to which reference has already been made, and to which I shall refer later, says:
  "Prima facie this involves an infringement of that rule of law which is 'a characteristic of the English Constitution.'"
  That is on page 6, second paragraph.
  It is obvious therefore that Parliament must have efficient machinery for supervising and controlling delegated legislation of this character. Our contention is that whereas the process of "laying" Orders was a perfectly right, proper and adequate safeguard in days when delegated legislation was the exception rather than the rule, to-day, when there is such
  214
  a mass of these Orders, it has become utterly inadequate, and it is physically impossible for the average Member to carry out what is his plain duty. In fact the process of Government by Rule has, for the moment, completely run away with us. With the rather haphazard habit so characteristic of the development of our Constitution it has grown, at first gradually, then rapidly, without any logical system, with the result that delegated powers now take the form of Rules, Regulations, Orders, Warrants, Minutes, Schemes, By-laws—the essential difference between these instruments, if any, being nowhere exactly specified. To the layman, at any rate, the political or legislative function of these different forms of Orders appears to be precisely the same. Throughout these instruments of delegated legislation, we find, again and again, different words being used to indicate the same meaning, and the same words being used to indicate different meanings, often according to the taste of the Department concerned.
  Through the multiplicity of Orders there often arises the most appalling confusion through overlapping. Departmental draftsmen, no doubt, do their best, and I do not in any way wish to criticise them, but it is undeniable that the drafting of a great many of these Departmental Orders often leaves much to be desired, and is very far below the standard we expect, and get, from our Parliamentary draftsmen. The result is many diffuse and incomprehensible Orders, which even practised legal minds find it difficult to understand, while the general public, who are often liable to heavy penalties if they do not comply, cannot understand them at all.
  I would like to give just one example of intolerable waste of time and delay which have recently occurred owing to a loosely drafted Order, which has apparently been differently interpreted by half-a-dozen different authorities. This is merely one example of many which have been sent to those of us who are known to have interested ourselves in these matters. At the beginning of this year the Transport Department of Glasgow Corporation wished to obtain 80 yards of blue cloth for various purposes. Accordingly, on 14th January the Department ordered 80 yards of blue cloth from Gourock Rope-work Co., Ltd. I will give particulars of

  215
  the correspondence which ensued. On 9th February the ropework company wrote asking for authorisation and suggesting that the Department should write to the Cotton Control, Manchester. On 14th February the Department wrote to the Ministry of Supply, Cotton Planning 'Department, Manchester, asking for a permit. On 18th February, Manchester replied:
  "In this instance apply to Ministry of War Transport, London."
  On 19th February, the Department wrote to the Ministry of War Transport, London, who passed the letter on to the Ministry of Home Security, Glasgow. On 10th March, Gourock Ropework Company rather naturally wrote again asking urgently for a permit, as they had other clients for this material. On 13th March, the Ministry of Home Security, Glasgow—
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have not an office in Glasgow, as far as I know.
  Commander Bower: I will show my right hon. Friend my authority afterwards. As I was saying, on 13th March the Department wrote saying that they could only deal with 20 yards of the cloth which was required for rescue vans, and that the remaining 60 yards required for other purposes should be reapplied for to the Ministry of War Transport, London. On 16th March, fresh applications were accordingly lodged with the Ministry of Home Security, Glasgow, and the Ministry of War Transport, London. On 18th March, the Ministry of Home Security issued a certificate for the 20 yards. On 20th March, this was sent to Gourock. On 21st March, Gourock Ropework Company replied saying that the certificate was not a permit, and was therefore useless, and advised writing to the Cotton Control, the people originally consulted nearly two months before. On 3rd April, Cotton Control replied saying that the Department should make their requirements known to the Ministry of War Transport, London.
  On 5th April, the Department, faint but pursuing, wrote once more to the Ministry of War Transport, London. On the same day a postcard was received from the Ministry of War Transport, saying that
  216
  the Department's letter of 16th March had been forwarded to Edinburgh—this concerned the 60 yards portion. On 11th April, another postcard was received from the Ministry of War Transport saying that the Department's letter of 5th April had been forwarded to Palmerston Place, Manchester, concerning the 20 yards portion. This, of course, would have been all right except that Palmerston Place is not in Manchester, but in Edinburgh. That is how the situation rested after 3½ months of stern effort on the part of all concerned. That is just one example of something which is going on all over the country.
  I turn now to the Committee on Ministers' Powers, commonly known as the Donoughmore Report, to which I have already briefly referred. This Committee, which reported in 1932, included among several hon. Members who are with us to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security. It also included Mr. Harold Laski. This Report is a real mine of information on the subject of delegated legislation, and in my view it should be in the library of every one interested in constitutional practice. But after publication apparently, no notice whatever was taken of it, and when a few months ago I wished to study it, I found with difficulty one copy in the Library, and was informed by the Stationery Office that it was out of print. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, however, came to the rescue, and a limited edition has now been reprinted.
  In page 20, and following, the Report emphasises the essentially subordinate character of delegated legislation. Parliament, it says, is supreme, and its power to legislate is therefore unlimited. It can do the greatest things; it can do the smallest. The Report points out that Parliament has, in its time, provided for the payment of old age pensions, and for boiling the Bishop of Rochester's cook to death. In a footnote it explains that an Act of Henry VIII provided:
  "… that the said Richard Rose shall be therefore boiled to death without having any advantage of his clergy."
  The Report then goes on to say that whereas it is a principle of our Constitution that whatever laws are passed by Parliament are binding as the law of the land on everybody, it is equally a principle of our Constitution that no one

  217
  may be deprived of his liberty or of his rights except in due course of law, that is, unless he has done something which the law says specifically shall have that effect. In the absence of a common law or statutory authority, "A" cannot be deprived of rights by an executive act of a Minister; and if the Minister claims to have made a Regulation entitling him to interfere with "A's" rights the courts can interfere to stop the Minister unless he can show by what authority he has made the Regulation in question. It follows, therefore, says the Report, that to safeguard the second of the two principles just mentioned, the precise limits of the law-making power which Parliament intends to confer on a Minister should always be defined in clear language in the Statute which confers it. This, in my view, is where we have too often gone wrong in some of our Statutes delegating wide powers.
  It is essential to make a clear distinction between delegated legislation in time of peace and of war—not that the underlying principles are in any way affected, but because the people, and their watchdog, Parliament, are willing to put up with a great deal in time of war that they would not tolerate in time of peace. As the Prime Minister has said:
  "Immense surrenders of their hard-won liberties have been voluntarily made by the British people in order, in time of war to serve better the cause of freedom and fair play. … Parliament stands, custodian of these surrendered liberties, and its most sacred duty will be to restore them in their fulness when victory has crowned our exertions."
  The watchdog, Parliament, has on the whole been faithful during the period of the war—with moments of laxness and aberration. But the crux is really going to come with peace for—let us be quite frank—opinions differ very widely as to the extent to which delegated powers should be used after the war. If, as some suggest, there is to be an extension, then surely that makes it all the more necessary to appoint a Committee such as this Motion demands.
  There are, of course, those who have the intention, if they get the chance, of effecting a revolutionary change in our entire social and economic system by means of Rules and Orders incapable of challenge in the courts, made under an Emergency Powers Act, which would be
  218
  passed through all its stages in one day immediately following a victory at a General Election. I think all my friends on this side will say that if this were done, it could lead only to a constitutional crisis of the gravest order. In fact, when my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak talked about the toad under the harrow, I am a little bit more afraid of the toad under the Winchester. I see that Winchester is not very well represented to-day.
  There are those—I believe the Home Secretary is one of them to judge by his pronouncements at Dundee, Bradford, and elsewhere—who desire to see a considerable extension of delegated legislation after the war. They are perfectly entitled to that view, but we are equally entitled to ask them how, if their ideas are to be brought into practice, they propose to safeguard the ancient liberties of our people which appear to be threatened. We are giving my right hon. Friend the opportunity to tell us to-day. The solution offered in our Motion to-day is, in our view, nothing more than an instalment. We offer a means, which seems to us reasonable, whereby the ordinary Member of Parliament who finds it a physical impossibility to carry out his plain duty of scrutinising the thousands of Rules, Orders and Regulations which now appear every year, can be assured, to some extent, as to which of them are harmless, and which affront, as many do now, the ancient traditional liberties of our people.
  The Donoughmore Report recommends a Committee such as we ask for, but it goes rather further than we do in determining the grounds on which a Regulation shall be examined. These grounds do not altogether appeal to us for various reasons which I need not enter into now, but we do venture to hope that if the Government disagree with our proposal, they will bring forward some proposals of their own for coping with a situation which is rapidly becoming intolerable and bids fair to upset the delicate balance of the centuries old Parliamentary machine. We are all agreed that some delegation is absolutely necessary. Parliament must delegate, but it must not abdicate. To-day we in this country are shaking off the last shackles of economic slavery, a slavery which since the enclosures and the Industrial Revolution has been a very real thing to many of

  219
  our people. But in so doing we must not forget—
  "The condition upon which God bath given liberty to man, is eternal vigilance; which condition, if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
  We have, I think, been a little lax in this matter in letting a new threat to our freedom arise. Perhaps the error into which we have fallen has been best summed up by John Christopher Hob-house who, writing of Fox, used these very remarkable words:
  "As most misery is caused by the pursuit of an abstract happiness, distinct from the occupations that make men happy, so most tyranny springs from the struggle for an abstract liberty, distinct from the laws and institutions that make men free."
  Mr. John Wilmot: The matter which has been raised to-day, on the Motion of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), is, in my view, of the utmost importance. How can we make our Parliament work, with a proper balance between action and control? I believe that upon finding the right answer to that problem, which was stated, in a most able and wise speech, by the mover, depends the whole future of Parliamentary democracy, of which we are the custodians. But we have to examine it very carefully. As soon as the European war is over, urgent action will fall to be taken to switch the whole war effort to the conquest of the remaining enemy. In this very complex and difficult task, affecting the lives of so many of our people, this House will have to play an active part. Unless there is to be a bewildering and dangerous interregnum, it must go forward to its work with terrific speed. When demobilisation begins, a truly formidable situation will confront Parliament. If the nation is to swing over rapidly, without disruption, from war to peace, our democratic system must work fast. The rapid solution of a whole range of major problems, which must be tackled simultaneously, because they all hang together, will be the price of the survival of our system. Food, work, homes, fair shares of what is still short, the organisation of export, the carrying on of the great projects in the White Papers and Reports, rebuilding the damaged cities, making the best use of our urban and rural land, organising the social security services and
  220
  carrying out a programme of public health—these will be the orders of the day of the Parliament of the victorious nation. To cover this ground while the armies are demobilising, we cannot afford to loiter, or to let the grass grow under our feet.
  So, in considering, as, in my view, we should consider, how we should adjust our Parliamentary practice to the changing needs and the varying tasks, let us keep right in the front of our minds this essential truth: that Parliament is a means to an end, and that end is the service of the people. All our procedure must be adapted so that this great instrument is fitted to the job on hand. We realised this on the outbreak of war, when we equipped the Executive with the power of acting by Defence Regulation and Order. Without it, the astonishing changeover of our economic and social apparatus from peace to the prosecution of total war, could never have been made. I believe that it will stand to the eternal credit of Parliament that we realised that in time. It probably saved us from defeat. In the years ahead great changes of a like order, but of a very different purpose, will have to be carried through—great, far-reaching, and beneficent changes. Much preparation has already been done. The Education Bill, now well on its way, was the first big instalment of legislation.
  But the subjects still waiting in the queue are many in number and complex in character—so complex that I doubt whether it would be possible to bring within the Clauses of the Bills direct authority for every action that would need to be taken. They are bound to be largely enabling Bills, giving direction and authority to Ministers and to local and other bodies and persons, to take the necessary steps and Acts to carry out the principles and policies upon which Parliament has decided. But, even were it possible to get it all into the Bill, that would surely have most undesirable results. Under delegated power, a Minister can make Orders in the light of circumstances. If circumstances change, if mistakes and omissions are made—as they are—he can amend and rectify by a subsequent Order, but if it is all in the Bill, he must come back to Parliament with an amending Bill, to take its place in the queue, and probably to get jostled out of it, while the anomalies remain. There would be no Parliamentary time.

  221
  Every Department, I am told, has Bills of this kind waiting in the pigeon-holes. They have been there for years, some for decades, waiting for Parliamentary time, while the old, obsolete laws clutter the ground. Too much detail in a Bill creates such congestion in Parliament that it stifles, rather than expands, the power of discussion and control. Hon. Members with longer experience than mine will remember better than I do that it was congestion that led to the Guillotine procedure. When the time allotted to a particular stage had elapsed, whole series of Clauses were carried through without any discussion at all. That, in my view, was a far more deadly instrument for crushing out Parliamentary discussion than the proper delegation of detail to Executive authority. So it seems to me that, unless we are prepared to meet the need for great and rapid change at the end of the war in the same way as we met it at the beginning, it will be years before all that is now clamouring to be done can be accomplished.
  Let us look back over the years before the war, and think how many of these vast and complicated Measures which now lie before us are likely to get through, even if they could be drafted under the old system, in a House which, whatever the political complexion of the Government, may well have a large and active Opposition. We should find that Parliamentary procedure was a major obstacle to the carrying out of the declared will of the people. It would be no excuse to say that there was no Parliamentary time.
  Mr. Keeling: May I suggest that my hon. Friend is really beating a dead horse? There is no suggestion in the Motion, and there was no suggestion in either of the speeches made, that we should limit the power to delegate. That is a matter for the House to decide on each Bill which proposes to confer such power. What we are discussing is the exercise of such power.
  Mr. Wilmot: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to discuss this matter in the way I think it should be discussed. It is a matter of great public importance, and the House has to look at it in all its bearings.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: If there is a big Opposition, is it not only right that that Opposi-
  222
  tion should have its opportunity of expressing the views of a large number of people in the country?
  Mr. Wilmot: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me another two or three minutes, I shall come to that point. I think we may take it that the needs of the peace years, no less than those of the war, will require the continuation, and indeed the extension, of delegated powers. There is nothing in the principle which conflicts with the constitutional principles and the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament has both the first and last words. Parliament gives and Parliament takes away; and it can take away at any time. Properly arranged delegation does not involve the loss of essential Parliamentary control. Why should it? It is surely no more than applying to the business of the nation the same principles of administration and organisation by which all other effective business management is carried on. The board of directors of a large corporation can properly control the undertaking only if it delegates the details and concentrates itself upon the principles and essentials. That does not mean that it has lost control; on the contrary, it is the means, and the only means, by which it can effectively retain control. It is the weak and incompetent board, which insists upon meddling with every day-to-day question of management. Such conduct can be trusted to run the enterprise into ruin. So, if we recognise, as I think we must, that, properly controlled, the use of delegated legislation is not only necessary but is a positive instrument for good, it is very wise to examine, as the mover suggested, whether the Parliamentary control which is an essential aspect of it needs to be strengthened or changed as suggested in the Motion.
  Mr. McGovern: On a point of Order. Is this really a Debate, or is it a day when Members come here to read prepared lectures? Is not this sort of procedure—by which the Motion is not really debated—undermining Parliament a great deal more than anything else?
  Mr. Speaker: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman had notes, and he is quite entitled to read notes. I can again take this opportunity of saying that I do not like speeches which are read and which are, after all, against the Rules.
  Mr. Wilmot: I think it would be wise, in the first place, to consider the powers that we have. They are not inconsiderable. The Defence Regulations can be annulled by a Prayer of either House, and such a Prayer is exempted Business. Many Statutory Rules and Orders are subject to affirmative or negative Resolutions. The other methods of Parliamentary control over the Executive have lost none of their terrors, and the Parliamentary Question and the Debate on the Adjournment are not inconsiderable guarantees of Parliamentary effectiveness. I was re-reading the other day a Debate which took place on this subject in this House about a year ago, and I was interested to read the claims then made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and others about the activities of the group of Private Members who had undertaken the task of scrutinising the Rules and Orders. Their efforts seem to have been very effective and to have had results. Nevertheless it is vitally important that Parliament should remain on the alert, eagerly watching to see that its functions or those of the courts are not usurped, while employing its time and energies to the best possible advantage.
  There are those of us who are convinced that, in the period of transition and reconstruction which will soon confront us, more and not less delegated legislation will be required. I was interested to hear that the mover of the Motion agreed with that view. It is the view which my hon. Friends and I take, and, far from resenting, we welcome a Debate such as this to see whether it is possible to tighten up our Parliamentary control and provide a further guarantee against possible abuses, particularly in cases which affect the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the Press and of speech. We are convinced that it will not be in the interests either of Parliament or of our democratic system, nor will the nation, in any mood, be tolerant of it, that there should be a holding up of legislation, because of inability to solve questions of Parliamentary procedure. But it is equally important that the delegation of authority, as a necessary method, should not be discredited, and that there should be public confidence in it and in the effectiveness of Parliamentary scrutiny and control. I think that this was recognised by the Home Secretary in the speech which he made in
  224
  the Debate last year. He then announced a series of steps designed, at any rate, to meet the wishes of the House as then expressed—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. Must the House listen to an entire speech before we have any Debate?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): There is a Rule of this House about reading speeches, and I think it would be a good thing if all hon. Members read that rule and followed it more.
  Mr. Wilmot: These announcements which the Home Secretary made in his speech last year did provide a very important series of changes in the matter of the issue of Orders, and these changes should have had good results. But they were confined to Defence Regulations and to the Orders made under them, while the Motion, and to-day's Debate, cover a much wider field. We are now looking ahead to the sort of arrangements that will be necessary after the end of the European war. A specific proposal in the Motion is for a Select Committee to scrutinise all statutory Rules and Orders and other instruments of delegated legislation presented to Parliament. This suggestion of a scrutinising committee is, as the hon. Member explained, not a new one. The Donoughmore Committee itself recommended a Joint Committee of the two Houses. The whole object of the Donoughmore Committee's recommendation was to inform the House, in the one case, of the nature of legislative power and, on the other, of the general character of the Orders made, and it was emphasised that the Committee should not go into the merits of a Bill or Regulation.
  An alternative suggestion was put forward by a number of hon. Members, including, I think, the hon. Member for The High Peak in the Debate last year, that there should be a Committee of Members to examine delegated legislation and report to the House, where necessary. There again, this Committee was not to be concerned with merits. I think that there is a very great deal to be said for a scrutinising committee of this kind, subject only to the overriding consideration that it would not cause delay or, what is also important, diminish the present powers of Members of Parliament. It would be necessary to avoid,

  225
  as is recognised, making heavy demands and taking up the time of Ministers and officials, and it would be essential that it should not concern itself with merits. But I do suggest that it is necessary to examine whether such a Committee would be able to carry out this work, without the power to have evidence from responsible persons and to obtain relevant information. I am inclined to think that, as the price of making it an effective piece of Parliamentary machinery, it should, within proper limits, be given those powers.
  Would it not be very difficult for a body of Members of Parliament to deal with complicated Rules and Orders, unless they had the opportunity of obtaining explanations from the Departments concerned on what would be very technical questions? Such an unequal task might easily sap the energy and the enthusiasm of the Committee, or might lead them, quite inadvertently, to give unsound advice to the House. I am also doubtful whether it would be possible, from the point of view of making the Committee effective, or whether it would be wise, as the Motion wishes, to charge this Committee with the task of continuous examination of all the Rules and Orders of delegated legislation presented to Parliament. I wonder if the proposers really considered the vast volume of work which would fall to this Committee under such terms of reference. Would it not be possible to find some way, in advance, of distinguishing between those Rules and Orders which would require scrutiny, and those where the need is less great? Otherwise, is there not a danger that the Committee will be so overwhelmed that it will miss the very essentials of which notice should be taken? Particularly, I think it is important that the Committee should be free to give very special attention to those Orders which affect the liberty of the subject.
  These are points which I think the Home Secretary might consider and with which I hope he will deal when he speaks on behalf of the Government. Subject to satisfactory assurances that the dangers and difficulties which have been mentioned are overcome, that the machinery is practical and efficient, that the duties of the proposed Committee are fairly and healthily discharged and that the rights of private Members are not
  226
  diminished, then the proposal in the Motion could be accepted by my hon. Friends in principle, and not least by those who, like myself, believe that the future must see a wide increase in the use of delegated legislation. We are anxious that those powers should be properly controlled, and that the safeguards against them should be such as to command public confidence, but this is subject to the overriding consideration that no delays must be occasioned by Parliamentary procedure which would hold up the work of government. It is for that reason that we could not accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), but my hon. Friends and I trust that the House as a whole would reject any Amendment designed to put on the brakes.
  In conclusion, I would say that I think it is paramount that we should so arrange our affairs in Parliament that we may render in the years ahead the services to the nation which it will demand and which it has a right to expect. Released at last from the strain and struggle, our people will be in no mood to await the upshot of interminable Debates—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Who prepared that speech?
  Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Member reads a speech, he should read it properly.
  Mr. Wilmot: I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Member has forgotten his manners.
  Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Member challenges me, I will draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the hon. Member appears to be reading his speech, contrary to the Rules of Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already told the hon. Member that there is a Rule against reading speeches, and it is rude to the House to continue reading.
  Mr. Wilmot: I am sorry, Sir. I was referring to notes on what is, after all, a rather technical and complicated subject, but I apologise. I was saying that it is of paramount importance that this House should not be hampered by procedure which prevents it from doing its work, and that it will be no answer to the returning soldier, who is looking for a job and trying to find a house, that there has been no Parliamentary time.
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Almost exactly a year ago, when we had a Debate on this subject, I intervened and said that the present method of putting down a Prayer, though perhaps unsatisfactory, was the best way of dealing with matters of this kind. I have not gone far from that position now, though I think some change should be tried. During the last year I have been taking an interest in the procedure in another place, and I think that the Special Orders Committee in another place has a very useful function. Although it has a large number of Members on the Committee—36, I see, when it was set up at the beginning of this Session—I have always felt that a small committee is the body that should concern itself with these Rules and Orders. A Standing Committee would be much too big, and I suggest a small committee. I further suggest to the Home Secretary the possibility of a Joint Committee. There is in today's "The Times" a letter from a late Member of this House, Lord Soulbury, dealing, to some extent, with this problem. Apparently, in the House of Lords, it has worked well for a considerable time.
  The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) said there would be difficulty in distinguishing between the merits of Orders, but the way it works in another place, I understand, is that a representative from the Department is sent over to explain how the thing is going to work, and this Committee, if they think fit, refer it for further consideration by the House. I think that if something of that kind was done it would deal with the enormous mass of Orders and Regulations put through, and I think, in addition, that it would be a deterrent on the Department pushing things which they think they might get through unobserved. I would also suggest that counsel to Mr. Speaker and counsel to the Lord Chancellor should assist in the same way as they assist in the case of Private Bills. They would be in the habit of dealing with these things, and they should be considered by them. This is worth trying, and if it does not work we shall be no worse off than we are to-day. They are accustomed to doing this in another place, and it would be well worth our trying it. There must be power to send for persons and to get the Departments to explain things.
  Mr. Burgin: I apologise to the two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion for not having been in my place when the Motion was called. I was a member of the original Donoughmore Committee and consequently this subject is one of rather special interest to me. For several months it has been my lot to travel somewhat extensively in military-controlled countries of Latin America. Legislation in a country of that kind under military dictatorship is of the simplest character; something is prohibited and there are consequences of a penal character. It is because, in a liberty-loving country, it is recognised that all legislation is compulsion that this House takes such very great care in dealing with legislation. As is obvious, legislation of an ordinary character is proposed in a manner in which the House can express its opinion upon the proposal as a matter of principle. And then the method of carrying that proposal into effect is discussed in detail, word for word, in Committee, and, what is so very important is, that hon. Members in touch with their constituencies, with their ears close to the ground and receiving communications on matters of fact, are able to bring these to the notice of the Government Department concerned in the discussions in Committee. Many provisions are altered in consequence, not because they were wrong originally but because facts were brought to the notice of the Committee, which saw that the words would go rather beyond what was intended by the legislation.
  I ask the House to remember that in delegated legislation, with which we are dealing to-day, in every instance where a Government Department has intentionally set out to go rather further than the case required, there must be a great number of cases where the wording is, in fact, inapt to produce the result required. In legislation, this House has an opportunity of discussing the principle and then of dealing with the wording to carry that principle into effect, but with delegated legislation neither the principle aimed at nor the actual wording comes to the notice of the House at all until the Regulation has been made. The whole matter is a fait accompli, the document is on the Table of the House, and the remedy is a Prayer, if it can be raised, if it can be effected in time, if Parliamen-

  229
  tary time can be found, and there are a number of other contingencies.
  The point I wish to bring out is that, in connection with any matter affecting liberty, the real truth is that there is no effective sanction for the breach of a rule of good behaviour. Let me illustrate it. Where one is dealing with neighbours, personal contacts in a whole realm of human affairs, there are established regulations of good behaviour, but, if one of these regulations of good behaviour is broken by an individual, under our present rules of human society it is very hard to find an effective sanction to deal with it. We all know of instances which occur to us in our ordinary daily lives. Why do I mention that rule of good behaviour? It is because, in delegated legislation, the Donoughmore Committee laid down canons of good behaviour. These canons of good behaviour are known to all the Government Departments. They are followed in greater or less degree according to the respect for the canons of good behaviour that the advisers of the particular offices themselves possess.
  Consider how these matters arise. Government Departments, although members of a central governing body, are to a very large extent autonomous institutions. A Department finds it is necessary to secure some Order, to pass some Regulation to give itself some power. The Minister sanctions the necessary preparatory steps and the adviser to the Department brings forward a suggested draft of what, in his judgment, would be apt to carry the Regulation into effect. That will be discussed by the officials of the Department. In all probability, it will be brought before a committee of several Departments, upon which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will no doubt be represented. The draft Regulation or draft Order will be subjected to some amount of discussion among heads of Departments and their representatives, all autonomous, all desiring some similar powers in their own particular line of administration, and all, therefore, more or less benevolently interested in what other Ministers and other Departments secure. The matter then may or may not be referred to Parliamentary draftsmen. A draft is prepared, and when the parties find that there is no particular objection to any particular wording, it will ultimately emerge as an
  230
  Order. At no stage during that preliminary method of discussion—which is what in fact happens—has that Regulation been brought up against its practical application, except to such extent as there may be wise administrators inside the Department who foresee possible dangers.
  The experience of a great many of us is that, very often a Regulation, made in all good faith for a purpose which would secure the privileges of this House, is framed in words which, besides achieving that object, achieve a great deal else not asked for by the Department and not necessarily foreseen, and may have very serious consequences upon the liberty of the individual. Whether or not a Government Department follows the canons of good behaviour laid down by the Donoughmore Committee is a matter for the Department. There is no sanction to compel adherence to the canons of good behaviour. Therefore, I would have hoped that the Government would have been able to accept the Motion moved to-day as a minimum. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) who has said that there must be delegated legislation. Of course there must. That is not the point. It is impossible for Parliament to attend both to the principle and to the tiniest detail of every matter. One of the great things we have to educate the public to understand is that the running of a large country is an extraordinarily intricate matter of administration and that there must be great delegation if there is to be speed, which, as the hon. Member has so rightly said, is necessary. But if we are to have this outpouring of delegated authority from Parliament to Minister and then in the form of Regulations, surely it is a very little to ask that there should be some means by which these Regulations which appear to be more likely to be capable of inflicting harm on any individual should be subject to some special scrutiny. That, I understand, from the hon. Member who moved the Motion, is what the object of this Committee is to be. I agree with the hon. Member for Kennington that the Committee will have a very busy time. I myself foresee an extension of this delegated legislation. I believe that inside the Government Departments the Regulations represent a perfect method of drafting. They are honest attempts

  231
  to keep within the limits of what these Regulations should and should not do. I believe that to be the sincere object, but the inadequacy of actual practical understanding of life is a serious detriment to the carrying out of those rules of good behaviour. I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed the assistance of a Committee of this House that called attention to the possibilities of danger lurking beneath the surface of the wording of certain provisions in certain of the drafts which come before the House for consideration.
  I do not think it necesary to detain the House by giving details of any particular Orders which have fallen into disrepute or which have caused particular troubles in local areas, but no one can be a Member for a large industrial community and see the Orders dealing with man-power, small shopkeepers, retail businesses, and with the removal of manufacture from one address to another, without being made conscious a dozen times a day of the fact that there are provisions in these Orders which could never have been intended by the draftsmen. Legislation, being compulsion, must at all times be surrounded by proper safeguards. If we delegate the power to compel, we must also see that an adequate safeguard is provided. I would have thought that the Motion was an absolute minimum, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.
  Commander King-Hall: I am afraid that when one approaches a Debate of the rather complicated nature and of the character of this Debate one often feels obliged to say that one does, not propose to follow the previous speaker in any detail. But in this case I am in a happier position, as, while listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin) I recalled some evidence which I read in the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure on Public Business in 1931. To Question 2,151 I find a reply which, I think, supports most exactly—but from a slightly different angle—the main thesis of the argument of my right hon. Friend.
  The witness who was then being examined was Mr. E. F. Wise, who had the great advantage from the point of view of the Committee of having been
  232
  himself a most distinguished civil servant, though he was at that time a Member of the House. His friends will recollect him as a man of singular intellectual brilliance. He was asked what he thought about this business of delegated legislation from his experience on the administrative side, and he used these words, which I think probably would be accurate if used by members of the Departments to-day. Even in those days Orders and Regulations were not being given the attention by the House which many hon. Members thought they should have, and Mr. Wise said:
  "It is not very satisfactory from the administrative side either, because it puts the Department in a position to be criticised and shot at without the protection which some real consideration and approval of those Regulations by the House would give it."
  That, Sir, I think is an important point which, so far as I am aware, has not been brought out in this Debate. He went on to say:
  "I do not think it is at all a good thing for a Department or for a Minister to have powers which the House of Commons regards, rightly, with jealousy, and the public with suspicion;"—
  this is the important point which brings out what was said as to the difficulty of foreseeing precisely what is going to arise—
  "… I am bound to say this, that it is quite impossible in my experience to foresee exactly what will he the new social relations created by bringing into operation a very big and complicated Act of this description"—
  he was referring to one of the Insurance Acts of the time—
  "—the sort of Act with which the House is faced so often now—until the Act has actually started and people have begun to sort themselves out; and therefore, short of amending legislation in this House, which would make the bringing into operation of such Acts nearly impossible, it is necessary to deal with it by Regulations."
  Then he went on to say that the particular solution which he would advocate at that time was the creation of a number of Committees of this House linked up to the different Departments. The House will recollect that as I have been quoting from the Select Committee of 1931, we are discussing to-day something which is no new subject; but I agree very much with the opening words of the speech made by my hon. Friend above the Gangway that we could hardly be discussing a

  233
  more important subject at the present time than this question of procedure. We are really discussing one aspect of the whole question of procedure of the House, and it is a question which has cropped up from time to time on the Floor of this House for at least the past 100 years. The House has been continually examining its procedure in order to find out whether this procedure at any given time was adequate for the purpose of its functions, and I submit to hon. Members that perhaps the most important of all those examinations was the Select Committee which sat in 1931. It was called the Select Committee on Procedure on Public Business. Now the minutes of evidence of that Committee make rather a formidable mountain of stuff—about 600 pages—but they are absolutely replete with valuable fact and opinion about the subject we are discussing to-day. I suggest that anyone who will take the trouble to read through the minutes of evidence of that Committee will find it very helpful. It received evidence from some 30 persons, such as the present Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—who, I recollect, in one of his observations, said that speaking then with 40years' experience in the House he had come to the conclusion that the House had no real control whatsoever over the administrative action of the Executive and it was a complete fiction to suppose that it had. It also included amongst the 30people examined my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), Mr. Ramsay Macdonald who was then Prime Minister, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Lord Samuel, and a great many distinguished Parliamentarians.
  What interested me on reading through this evidence was to realise the fundamental difference of opinion which emerged from the evidence of these very distinguished and experienced Parliamentarians. There was a clear difference between those who regarded the prime function of this House as being the great Debating Assembly, the great forum in which the big issues of the day were discussed, much as they were particularly in the 18th century, the forum where public opinion was ventilated. One group obviously put that function of the House first. There was a second category of persons who put that second and regarded
  234
  the prime function of the House to be the control over administration and generally keeping a check on the activities of the Executive.
  I do not think it would be in Order, nor would the House wish me to argue those two cases, but what is important from the point of view of our present Debate is that it is indeed obvious if one studies these minutes, and the witnesses themselves said that a procedure of the House which is suitable for grand debate is unsuitable for the purposes of keeping control over the Executive, and vice versa. Therefore, a great deal of the difficulty which they thought they were in at that time—which I think we are in to-day—is that our procedure is an attempt to get the best of both worlds. I believe that, unsatisfactory as it is supposed to be to try to get the best of both worlds, the House of Commons is not going to refuse to continue striving to get the best of both worlds; in fact, the House of Commons is not going to say, "We admit the whole thing has got so complicated that we cannot possibly pursue the Executive into the paper labyrinth they have erected around themselves, so we must allow them to go in there and hope for the best. We will confine ourselves solely to the grand debate." I may say, having studied the procedure of both Houses, that in the past 18 months the other place has to some extent "pinched," if I may use a colloquialism, the privilege of this grand debate.
  I see you are getting restive, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so I will get back into Order at once. I will only say that I think the House of Commons will insist on wishing to do two things: it will wish to debate the large issues—and I think the White Paper system is the way we should do that—but, at the same time, the House is not prepared—and I think probably very rightly—to abandon its ancient rights of endeavouring to keep control over the actions of the Executive, in particular as they affect the individual. What I think we must bear in mind—it comes out most strongly from reading this evidence—is that procedure is a means to an end, and the end is a function of some kind. Therefore, we must make it clear to what extent we want to balance up this function of grand debate and examination of detail.

  235
  I support this Motion, moved so ably if I may say so by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and seconded in a very technical and interesting speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower), because I think it makes a move in the direction of improving procedure from the point of view of supervision. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak, and the House, frankly, that I do not think he is going to be able to stop where this Motion suggests we should go. But we have to do these things gradually, and I hope the Government will accept this Motion or something like it, in order that we may experiment and see whether or not it is advisable to move on from the point to which my hon. Friend and his friends who support the Motion want us to get, to the further point which has so often been discussed, that there should be committees of various kinds linked up specifically on a functional basis to the different Departments. I should deprecate that at this stage, until we have carried out some experiments with the Committee which is suggested in this Motion to-day.
  There is one point I would venture to make before I sit down. I feel strongly that what I have previously referred to in this House as the Public Relations of Parliament is a subject to which the House will have to give an increasing amount of attention. It is absolutely vital, if Parliament is to continue to enjoy the high esteem in the minds of the people that it has done for centuries, that the outside public should feel that this House is alive and linked up with the things which people are talking about in their own homes, and the Regulations which affect them. I think that if the Government will accept this Motion, or give us some concession on these lines, it will have two good effects. First of all, the creation of such a Committee will ensure a discussion of some of these controversial and difficult Regulations, which will obtain publicity and will show that the House of Commons is doing its job as a watch dog. I also think—for various reasons with which I will not detain the House as they are rather technical matters—that the existence of this Committee, and the delegation of work which the House should be doing and which the
  236
  House at present is attempting to do through Prayers in a rather spasmodic manner, will have an additional advantage, in that it will release a certain amount of time, thought and activity for this other extremely important business of the House—general debate and discussion on the great affairs of the day.
  Therefore, I support the Motion on two grounds; first, for its immediate advantage and purpose in dealing with delegated legislation and, secondly, because I believe it to be a step towards modernisation. It is only a small step but I think the House in the next few years may have to take some big steps in the way of altering its procedure. However, though it is a small step forward in the general modernisation and improvement of procedure, it may also enable the House of Commons in its debating aspect to do its duty more efficiently in that respect.
  Mr. McGovern: I have listened to some of the speeches that have been made to-day, and I must say that I find myself largely in agreement with the efforts made by the hon. Members who have brought forward this Motion. I think they are doing a public service in drawing attention to the fact that delegated legislation and Regulations are being very extensively used during the period of this war, not only for the purpose of conducting the war efficiently against the enemy but very often to give the Executive more and more power over the average citizen. I am all for speed in legislation but I do not want speed based on the tommy gun or the prison cell; I want speed based on the quickening of the pulse, the mind, and the State, by the stimulation of the electorate of this country when they feel that ordinary parties are not going ahead speedily enough in the ordinary sphere of social legislation. But if this growing tendency to give the Executive greater and greater power over the individual is to be proceeded with, then I say the nation has to beware of where we are going.
  At the present moment we are seeing the speeding-up of legislation and along with that, in the case of the Continental Powers, has gone the complete elimination of Parliamentary government and the voice of the people. If we encourage putting delegated legislation into the hands of an Executive and of civil servants, then we shall find ourselves travelling the same

  237
  road. Where a man's livelihood or his liberty is at stake, I want the most minute examination of the legislation and Regulations proposed. I want examination of the proposals made by the Executive, and I am in full and hearty agreement with the proposal that a Committee of this House should study and consider any legislation that is proposed. A large number of Members are not attending Parliament, and those who do attend are not paying attention to the legislation proposed. As a substitute for the voting down by the power machine in the Lobbies we should have a reasoned examination of all proposals by a well informed Committee of this House, which would act as watch-dogs. At election time we fight on party issues and party policies, but very often these are not completely accepted by the nation. You may get to the stage where you have a small majority party in office and a powerful minority which has to be listened to, and it may be that after the election the complete policy of the ruling party has to be discarded in favour of a compromise more in accord with the mind and mood of the nation as it was during the time of the election. Therefore, it is up to the House to be careful about entrusting power to the Executive.
  We have seen a growing tendency to have rule by Regulation and Order. We have been told by an hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench that if a Regulation is passed all a Member need do is to pray against it and raise the matter in the House. All honour to the men who watch these things and bring Prayers forward, but suppose a Member does this. The power machine says "You will be driven out of public life because you dare to be the watch-dog of the nation." Further, this growth of power is being given to outside bodies. We saw, in connection with a recent Regulation, that the T.U.C. were the determining body as to what should be passed, over the heads of Members of this House. That is not Parliamentary government. That is shirking Parliamentary government and the duty of Members in this House. We have no right to allow these large trusts to have such power. The masters' federation and the T.U.C. are becoming combines that are prepared to bludgeon down their own members according to the desire of the Executive, with whom they temporarily share control
  238
  of the nation. I am not for delegating that power. I would go out completely from public life rather than put the destiny of my voice and vote into the hands of any machine that will not pay any heed to the interests of this nation. I will be subservient neither to any Executive nor power that seeks to dominate our political parties.
  I have an abhorrence of the methods which are being used to-day, and which are being steadily developed. For instance, there are tens of thousands of small business people who, purely by chance, are not in prison. They are expected to know all the Regulations and Orders which have been passed by this House. I met a sheriff the other day in Scotland and he said to me, "What does Parliament intend to do about it? Are you aware that up to now 868 Orders and Regulations have been published? My room is strewn with these documents and I, as a lawyer, have to try to understand them. Then I get a poor uneducated person in the dock, afraid almost to speak because he feels that the Gestapo has a hold on him, and he is expected to know the law. I say to my business friends at the end of each week, 'Are you still free?'" It is not the large business people, who have their legal advisers to help them, but the small men who are suffering. They are breaking the law every day without knowing that they are doing so. They want to be decent citizens and play their part in the life of the country, but they are amazed and staggered at what is going on. They say "Are we gradually getting to the state of the German race and the other people we are fighting and condemning?"
  The development of this procedure by Regulation and Order can be argued by the partisans on both sides. Members of the Labour Party say "We must have speedy government. When we get a majority we must be able to marshal and drive everybody into our own pen." Well, I have not been aware of anything in the minds of Transport House or the Carlton Club that would drive me along that avenue and make me believe that they were the custodians of the rights and liberties of the people of this country. We must get away from the idea that if we get power or majority we have to drive the rest of the nation along the way which we decide is the way for them to go. In spite

  239
  of the powerful Conservative and Labour Parties there is a community in between which has to be considered. Of course, it is unfortunate from the party point of view that that community should require to be considered. But these people have the power to make and unmake Governments and if you drive them too far they will revolt. The British nation is tolerant and patient in its weighing up of policies and men; it will suffer betrayals and make excuses for betrayals, and what is amazing to me is that it will go on doing so. But there comes a time when betrayal will no longer suffice. It is true that after this war there must be a speeding up of Parliamentary legislation and action to meet the requirements of the citizens who have borne the brunt of the struggle, but Parliament must be very careful to see that it travels along the right road.
  There are individuals and one or two officials who say "We will put so and so into prison because he is a nuisance," and it is done. If a Member goes to the Home Secretary or his Under-Secretary, or to an official, and says, "What crime has been committed?" it is not divulged. Yet the man may be put into prison on a false assumption or on anonymous letters that may be quite untrue. If a Member of Parliament brings a case forward he is not at liberty to discuss what the man is charged with. Further, an advisory committee may say "Release the man," but the Home Secretary may say "No." There must be care in these matters. I would rather take two steps than one false step. Whether it be small private interests or anybody else whose life and well-being is likely to be affected, no drastic action should be taken unless there is an examination of their rights and liberties. I claim to be a Socialist, not a totalitarian Socialist but a libertarian Socialist, who is all for reason as against brute force and will resist such force, whether it is for the purpose of restraining men in prison or whether it comes through Act of Parliament, Regulation or Order. As I have said, I find myself in agreement with the proposal to set up a Select Committee, because if Parliament is to continue there must be changes and Parliamentary government must be speeded up. This can only be done by letting the large number of unemployed Members of this House share in the responsibility and
  240
  power of a democratic nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Make them come."] Give to these Members the work of examining the proposals that come forward. I believe in defending liberty, and the only way we can defend and perpetuate Parliamentary democracy is to give to the citizens of this country that to which they are justly entitled.
  Captain Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) will be delighted, as I am sure the House will too, with the speech made by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). The hon. Member expressed, very largely, my own sentiments in a far better way than I can do, and I rise merely to make three suggestions to the Government. I have not prepared a speech, but I give these ideas, which have occurred to me over a number of years during which I have had a good deal of experience of Regulations and Orders. First of all I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin) at the Board of Trade, where we dealt with Gas Orders, all of which had to be the subject of positive Resolutions of the House. Then there were Import Duty Orders made under various Acts of Parliament. Those which were designed to increase taxation had to come before the House for positive Resolution, while those which reduced taxation were not so subject. At the Ministry of Transport there were Electricity Orders. Then the Ministry of Supply was set up, and the war started and this flood of Orders came along.
  I do not object to the flood of Orders, which I believe is necessary in the interests of the country, and I am willing to give the Government all the power they want to win the war, but I have become more anxious about this sort of thing recently because we have begun to pass legislation dealing with post-war conditions. The Education Bill, of course, is the most important, but various Acts have recently been passed, particularly the one dealing with disabled men's employment. In that there were so many Clauses giving the Minister of Labour power to make Regulations of various kinds that really, when one considers it, the Act became a mere skeleton and the substance was subject to Regulations to be made afterwards by the Minister. So

  241
  it goes on. I have been wondering for some time whether this vast power is necessary or desirable. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last that we must scrutinise everything that comes before Parliament with the greatest care. I am not so concerned with speed as with the careful scrutiny of everything that comes before us, in the interest of the liberty of our people, so that Members of Parliament can do their duty to their constituents.
  There are three suggestions that I want to make. They are not new. Some have been made in the Donoughmore Committee Report while others have come into my mind as the result of the experience that I have related. First of all, I think it ought to be laid down clearly what is a Rule, what is a Regulation, what is an Order and what is a scheme, or any other term that may be used, and let us differentiate clearly between different kinds of Rules, Regulations, Orders and schemes. I have nothing very definite in my mind, but let us say that a Regulation in every case should be subject to a positive Resolution of the House, an Order, being a still more minor thing, should not necessarily be subject to a Resolution of the House but should go to a Standing Committee, and a scheme might perhaps lie on the Table for 40 days; but let us have it clearly laid down for the future by the Government what each of these things means. There should be a self-denying ordinance by the Government that, as far as possible, in their forthcoming legislation there should be as little recourse to Regulations as possible. I do not agree with what has been said about delay. The delays are in the Government Departments before the Bills come here. They are the fault of the Government and the Departments, because they cannot make up their minds what they want to do. Let us have as much in the legislation as we can. The Regulations should be subject to positive procedure rather than negative.
  My third suggestion—here I disagree slightly with the mover of the Motion—is that there should be a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses to investigate such Regulations as are laid on the Table of either House. In the case of Regulations requiring positive Resolutions, it would seem unnecessary that the Standing Joint Committee should have a pre-view of what is going to happen in any case
  242
  before the House, but all Regulations which have to lie on the Table for 28 or 40 days should come before the Standing Joint Committee. Lord Soulbury's letter in "The Times" to-day brings the point out clearly. One further suggestion, on which I slightly differ from the Motion, is that the Standing Joint Committee should have the power to call for persons, papers and records. I cannot see that, if you have a Committee, you are going to sit down together as laymen and enter into the details of these technical Orders and understand them. You will have to have someone to explain them and then the Committee will be able to use its common sense and judgment in coming to its determination on each one.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Just under a year ago we were discussing this question in almost similar terms. The Home Secretary then said that the appointment of a Select Committee would be a mistake and would not work. That was repeated in July. Presumably, from the fact that time has been given for this Debate, the Government have now changed their mind and have some proposal to put forward. I think it is a pity we were not informed of the Government's proposals before the Debate started, because it seems to me that would have been of far greater value. It was upon the assumption that some concrete proposals would be put forward that, on Report and Third Reading of the Education Bill, the President of the Board was relieved of certain trouble with regard to the power of making Regulations. It seems to me that the argument in favour of delegated legislation can be divided into two parts. First, it is said that in war-time the necessity for speed is such, and the pressure on Ministers is such, that the Government must be allowed to rule by a mass of Regulations. The second argument seems to be that in the post-war period speed will be of the essence, and will be of much more importance than the quality of the legislation. The Home Secretary summed up the argument very clearly in one of his week-end speeches when he said that amid the problems of the post-war period democracy must work faster, you cannot get a gallon and a half out of a pint pot and, in short, that Parliamentary time was too short for Parliament to do its job.

  243
  I am not satisfied that the pressure on Parliamentary time in peace-time will be too much to enable Parliament to do its job satisfactorily. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that we must not overlook the interests of the small man who is oppressed by the mass of Regulations, who does not know from day to day whether he is breaking the law or not, and who is always in peril of suddenly being charged with an offence. It is of vital importance that we should not place too much on the value of speed in passing legislation. Regulations do not win wars and in peace-time will not bring prosperity and happiness to the country. We have to carry out our responsibility. The country looks to us to see that the laws are fair and proper. We may delegate our legislative power to a Minister, but the country still holds us responsible for its exercise. It is of vital importance that, if this power of delegation should go on—I think it must go on in a limited degree—that it should be subject to proper safeguards. I welcome the proposal of the mover of the Motion that a Committee should be set up to scrutinise the Rules and Regulations that are made. If the Committee comes to the conclusion that an Order is one that deserves the special attention of the House, it follows that prima facie it is an abuse of the power given by the House, and the effect of the Order should be suspended from that moment until it has been approved by a Resolution of both Houses. Then, it seems to me that, without giving it executive power it would serve a useful function and be a real check on the exercise of these powers. It seems to me that that would have a deterrent effect, in preventing any abuse of power.
  It does not seem to me that, whatever we do, we can shed any atom of the responsibility that we hold towards our constituents for the exercise of these powers of delegated legislation. It is nonsense to say that, because the House has given a Minister power to make Regulations, the House has freed itself from all responsibility for its exercise. I feel that, even if the Committee is set up, we shall have to be careful to see that Ministers do not get wider powers than are necessary, and to see that Regulations do not slip through the net. We cannot sit back and leave it to the Committee to do its job. Our responsibility will remain
  244
  the same as in the past. I hope we shall be given some indication how we can reduce this enormous mass of war-time Rules, Regulations and Orders which no lawyer finds it easy to find his way through, even if he finally succeeds in doing so.
  Mr. Silverman: There has been so far throughout the Debate a considerable amount of agreement. Certain principles appear not to be controversial at all. One is that the delegation to Ministers of Parliament's sovereign right to make laws is to that extent an infringement and an abrogation of the functions of Parliament. The second thing that appears to be agreed is that, even though that be conceded, it is inevitable in our complicated world that, if this House is to function at all, such delegation shall be made. The House is concerned to-day with a multifarious complication of questions and aspects of questions with which the framers and makers of our constitution centuries ago were not concerned and which they did not contemplate. If the House were to insist on retaining its legislative functions in every detail of the application of every principle, the result would be that the House would stultify itself completely and it would have control of nothing. The third point that appears to be not in controversy is that it remains necessary, and becomes more and more necessary, that the House should apply some kind of selective principle. While it agrees that some part of its sovereign authority to make law must be handed over to Ministers, we must, in order that we may retain our control of the laws of the country, retain our own responsibility for what is done. We may delegate the act, but we cannot delegate the responsibility for the act, and, therefore, some machinery should be created that will apply some selective principle to the accumulation of Departmental decrees in order that the House may in the selected instances resume its own responsibility for what is done.
  The points of difference appear to be as to the kind of machinery which should be evolved for that purpose, and I dare-say there is no real difficulty about that. It does not much matter what kind of machinery is created so long as the machinery is acceptable to the House as a whole. One understands from hints

  245
  that have been dropped that the Government are of that mind and are prepared to set up some kind of machinery for the purpose. The more important point is the principle upon which the selection shall take place. How shall the House decide which are matters that can more safely be left to departmental legislative authority, and which are matters on which the House should be very reluctant to part either with its own responsibility or with its actual power. The effect of the Motion and the Amendments is to produce a situation in which the Statutory Rule or Order, instead of deriving its authority only from the Department, shall derive it from the House What are the kinds of matters on which sovereign authority should be retained by the sovereign House of Commons?
  In the Amendment which some of my hon. Friends and I hoped might be called, we have endeavoured to draw a distinction between two divisions in which the rights of the subject can be placed. We have drawn a distinction, at any rate by implication, between the liberty of the subject to deal as he himself would wish with his property on the one hand, and all those aspects of the liberty of the subject which concern not his property but himself on the other. We contend that this is a sound distinction. The right of free speech may be abused. Even the right of opinion may be abused. The right of assembly may be abused. The Press may abuse its liberty. There are circumstances, as we all concede, in which the Executive may be entitled, and, indeed, are bound, to infringe what in normal circumstances they would not be entitled to infringe, namely, the personal liberty of the subject without appeal to the courts. However all these matters may be abused, none of them can be abused to the extent to which the rights of property can be abused. The free and uncontrolled right of the individual to deal with his property and apply it in any way that seems good to him has been responsible for more mass human misery than any other principle to which the mind of man has lent support.
  The right of the individual person to do what he will with his own is, in the last analysis, the cause of hunger, of poverty, of scarcity, of class conflict, of national conflict and, ultimately, the cause of war. The rights of persons to accumulate property and to apply it in
  246
  order to exploit the liberties of others is not one of the rights which have advanced the happiness of mankind—quite the contrary. Unless the world is to return to all the miseries and to all the conflicts and unnecessary suffering and tragedy that characterised it between the wars, it is inevitable that this House, elected as it is on a universal suffrage of the people, shall assume power to prevent individuals from so using their own property as to be the cause of misery, suffering and death in others. It is obvious that that can only be done in our complicated society if this House is to retain in its own hands the sole right to apply every principle in the management of property. It is otherwise when we are dealing with more personal rights and liberties. I have conceded, and I concede again, that even those personal liberties may be abused. They have been, and although they may be abused and may have to be controlled, and although there are circumstances in which they may have to be controlled drastically, it still remains true that they have not the power to do the universal harm that the unrestricted rights of property involve. Therefore, it is right that in those matters which go to the very root of democratic ways of living the House should not, unless it can find no other way, part with its own authority.
  I do not want to impute improper or unworthy motives to anybody, but I have listened to these Debates more than once. I have heard the indignant protests—coming, not entirely, but very largely, from the other side of the House—about delegated legislation and its evils, and, somehow or other, whenever delegated legislation attacks the liberties of the people, as distinct from the liberties of property, hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side who get so indignant when property is affected are either not here at all or vote for the Government.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The hon. Member will not forget, I think, that the protests against the delegated legislation which dealt with the liberty of the subject under Regulation 18B came from this side of the House and not from that side.
  Mr. Silverman: I am quite prepared to concede that on Regulation 18B there was a good deal of activity coming from

  247
  Members on the other side of the House. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, for his part, concede that it did not come from his side of the House exclusively. I hope he will not think I am scoring a cheap or debating point if I say that the protests against 18B, or some of its manifestations, at any rate, were made in circumstances which made it very easy for some Members of the Conservative Party to make them. Some of them may well have said to themselves, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."
  Mr. McGovern: Some Socialists might say that too.
  Mr. Silverman: Some Socialists could say it too, I agree. I am not making any party point about it. I am saying that, in the main, the group of Tory Members who have been so insistent about delegated legislation have been very conspicuous in opposition whenever the rights of property have been affected, and not nearly so conspicuous when the liberties of the subject have been affected.
  Sir A. Southby: The hon. Member will agree, I think, that the rights of property mean as much to the man who has little property as to the man who has much. Hon. Members on this side are as much concerned with the man who has little as with the man who has much.
  Mr. Silverman: Liberty is a function of society. It is not an individual thing. What society has to deal with are questions that arise when the pressure of individual rights becomes a social evil. In the case of the rights of property, it becomes a social evil at the point where a man has property which gives him a greater power than his fellow citizens, which gives him power to expoit the lives of others, and which gives him power so to organise the material and economic resources of the State as to land the whole world in disaster and calamity. We are entitled to draw a distinction between the free use of property of that kind and the humble use of humble resources by humble people.
  Mr. Monningham-Buller: The hon. Member has said repeatedly that activity against delegated legislation is only shown on this side when any question of property has been involved. Can he state any Bill which has been under consideration
  248
  in the last year in which that was the case? It was not so with the Disabled Persons Bill, which dealt with persons; or with the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill, which again dealt with persons. There were also the Pensions Increase Bill and the Education Bill.
  Mr. Silverman: If I were to review the whole legislative field—
  Mr. Manningbam-Buller: Give only one instance.
  Mr. Silverman:—I should make a much longer speech than you, Sir, would like me to make. My hon. Friend challenges me to give one instance, and I hope he will take the example I will give as a sample of other instances which I could give, and will give if I am challenged. On Friday, 28th April, the House was debating Regulation IAA. I am not going to say a word about the merits or demerits of that Regulation. [Interruption.] Perhaps I might give my answer and if the hon. Member wants to make any comment I will then give way and allow him to make it. Let me give him the instance he asks for. Without discussing the necessity, or lack of necessity, the rights or wrongs of it in any way, let us see what that Regulation did. It altered the definition of strikes and lockouts. In the result, what was formerly a strike is now a lock-out. It made it an offence for any man to seek to persuade another man to do what it was conceded to be perfectly lawful for the other man to do. It made it an offence, punishable on indictment by five years' penal servitude, for a man to do in one place what another man might do in all innocence in another. It gave privileges under the criminal law to a section of the community which were not enjoyed by other members of the community in like case.
  I am not saying a word at this time on whether that was right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, but I am saying that it was a most revolutionary thing to do. It introduced the most fundamental alterations in the concept of our criminal law, and that was not done by a deliberate act of Parliamentary legislation, with a Committee stage where everything could have been reviewed and alterations suggested. It was done by delegated legislation which made it impossible for this House to do anything except to accept it as a whole or reject it as a whole. It seems to me

  249
  that persons who were concerned about delegated legislation, about its evils, about the necessity to review it and about the necessity to control the Executive in the exercise of delegated powers, might have taken a very serious view, not merely about the Regulation itself, but about the method chosen by the Government to introduce it into our criminal law.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would ask the hon. Gentleman in what way he connects Regulation 1AA with property. He said he was going to give an instance where Members on this side of the House had been active only in legislation connected with the rights of property. His own observations about Regulation 1AA made it quite clear that that Regulation had nothing to do with rights of property, but only referred to actions of certain individuals.
  Mr. Silverman: I thought the hon. Member was inviting me to cite an instance where personal liberty was attacked by delegated legislation in which those who made all this fuss and bother about delegated legislation were not concerned and I have given him his instance. I understand, now, that that is not what he means. He wants me to give him an instance where they have concerned themselves with delegated legislation where property was concerned. Have I got it right now?
  Mr. Manningham Buller: If I may say so, the hon. Member himself said that Members on this side of the House were only concerned with rights of property, and I challenged him to give an instance.
  Mr. Silverman: Certainly. I say there is no occasion at all—and I say it in the widest terms and the hon. Member can deny it if he wishes—on which the little group of Tory Members who have attacked delegated legislation—I am not talking about Regulation 18B—and all the other issues on which they raised debates, have been concerned with other than the rights of property. I will give one instance. It was the case where the Minister of Fuel and Power—I think it was—exercised his powers against a colliery owning company which had so exercised its rights of property as to produce a state of labour unrest which did not exist in any other mine anywhere in the country, due to its attitude to trade
  250
  unionism. A great deal of fuss and bother was raised in this House and elsewhere.
  There was the instance of Messrs. Short Brothers, the flying-boat company, which caused a lot of fuss and bother and, indeed, I think that the hon. Members who are cross-examining me about this thing very well know in their hearts that they have repeatedly, and I think almost universally, confined their protests to questions where property was affected. But that is not the real point. The hon. Member has made his speech, and I know he cannot make another, but there are plenty of his friends sitting round him. Apart from Regulation 18B, have they ever raised their voices against delegated legislation when the liberty of the subject was concerned? Did they support us when we had a Prayer against Regulation 2D? Certainly they did not.
  Mr. Erskine-Hill: Last July we raised in this House the question of the continuance of the emergency laws. There were many speeches made at that time.
  Mr. Silverman: I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, I understand, is speaking later in this Debate, to explain where he was on Friday, 28th April, when we were discussing Regulation 1AA.
  Sir A. Southby: My hon. Friend has raised the question of Regulation 1AA. Some of us, at any rate, on this side of the House were concerned about Regulation 18B because it confined a man to prison without trial. My hon. Friend will appreciate that Regulation 1AA, however objectionable it is, gave the man a trial.
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a point which I concede, but it has nothing to do with any argument, and he knows it has not. I have told him what 1AA does. The Attorney-General is here and he heard what was said in the Debate on that day. He did not deny it then and, I think, if he speaks in this Debate, he will not deny it now. It does not lay in the mouth of Members who were absent on that occasion, who did not help or support us in any way, to object if I say that their interest is chiefly in delegated legislation where their friends are concerned—where their personal liberty is concerned.
  I want to deal with another point. It was said by the hon. Member for The High

  251
  Peak Division (Mr. Molson)—who made a very interesting, moderate and restrained speech, the last part of which I agree with, though not all of it—that he did not think that the liberty of the subject was properly to be protected in the courts. I am sorry he is not here, because I would not willingly do him an injustice, but I did interrupt his speech on the point. He said he wanted two things. First, he wanted a Select Committee to review the Orders themselves and to recommend certain of them to the special notice of the House, but he was careful to say, expressly, that in the application of any Statutory Rule or Order to an individual, specific case, the Minister ought not to be challengeable in the courts. He ought to be answerable here in this House and this House ought to determine judicially whether, in the specific individual instance, the Minister had reasonably and equitably exercised his powers, or no.
  I think this lies at the root of the whole controversy. I say that this House is so constituted that it cannot exercise a judicial function in individual cases. Indeed, unless I have substantially misunderstood the constitution under which we work, it was for that very reason that this country has always insisted on having an independent judiciary so that the individual who has a complaint against the Executive can take his grievance, for third-party judgment, to an impartial tribunal, answerable to nobody for its decision. But once you endeavour to apply that kind of function to this House, you find yourself in a position in which it is impossible for judicial functions to be exercised at all.
  How can a judicial function be exercised? Certain things lie at the root of it. You abolish, you distort and you pervert the judicial function unless these conditions exist. What are the conditions on which judicial functions can be exercised? The first is that the tribunal, the judge, shall have no interest whatever in the result of the case he is trying. The second is that he shall be answerable to nobody for what he does. True, his decision may be mistaken, and if it is mistaken there is an appellate tribunal, but he is not to be dismissed by a tribunal: He is not to lose his office if he is wrong. He is not to be expelled. He is to exercise his judicial functions in conditions of complete security. He is not even to be
  252
  liable to personal criticism for what he does in his court. If he is criticised it is contempt of court which he, himself, may punish by imprisonment, or if anyone attributes to him in the exercise of his judicial functions motives which ought not to influence his mind at all. He is to have no interest in the result.
  He has to be free from criticism or penalty for what he does, and he has to be uninfluenced, in his judicial determination of a question before him, by the consequences of what he does. It is not for the court to say: "We will not do justice in this case because the consequences go far beyond the importance of the case." He has to do justice in the case before him, though the Heavens fall. Unless those three conditions are satisfied, judicial functions cannot be exercised at all.
  I am sorry I am so long, but this is a very important matter. I want the House to consider how these principles apply to the exercise of judicial functions in this House. They do not. They are not exercised at all. They cannot be exercised at all. Those conditions, which are vital to the exercise of judicial functions, are the antithesis of the principles on which we work in this House. Let me take an instance, and again I say nothing whatever about the merits of it, one way or the other. There was an occasion when the Minister for Home Security exercised his right, his duty, under Regulation r8n, to release Sir Oswald Mosley. I am not saying that he was wrong about that. I am not saying that he was right either. That consideration is irrelevant to my argument, although many people would have preferred, if the right hon. Gentleman was going to release him, that he should have done so for reasons of security and not for reasons that were a rather shabby subterfuge. There is no doubt that this action aroused—
  Mr. H. Morrison: Do I understand that my hon. Friend is accusing me of a shabby subterfuge? I should like to know.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not want to debate the merits of the matter but I will answer the question perfectly frankly. There are many people who are not satisfied with the evidence produced by the Home Secretary that the release was justified on medical grounds.
  Mr. H. Morrison: That is another matter. The hon. Member is saying something else.
  Mr. Silverman: It is perfectly true at any rate, and this will not be denied anyway—that the right hon. Gentleman's action aroused strong disagreement. This House was called upon to exercise a judicial function to determine whether the right hon. Gentleman was right or wrong, but-in exercising that judicial function the right hon. Gentleman did what he was entitled to do. He said rightly: "I am making this a question of personal confidence in myself." The Government made it clear that the question was one also of confidence in the Government as a whole. So, Mr. Speaker, what was a Member of this House to do? He might have thought, and there were many who thought, that the release was wrong.
  Mr. Speaker: I really think that the hon. Member must leave this illustration now. He has spoken for a long time and he must come down to the point.
  Mr. Silverman: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not persist in thinking that this subject is irrelevant.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, the subject is becoming irrelevant.
  Mr. Silverman: I am endeavouring to put to you, Sir, the difficulty in which a Member of this House is, in exercising a judicial function where other questions, besides the merits of the particular matter before the House, are involved. I submit with great respect that that is not merely relevant but vital to the issue that we are discussing.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may point out the difficulties, but to point them out by discussing the detail of another case is to be irrelevant.
  Mr. Silverman: I carefully avoided discussing any of these details and I think that the only point at which I transgressed was when I was invited to do so by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Why did the hon. Member start the subject?
  Mr. Silverman: It was the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the details of this particular case, but we will leave the case alone and consider a hypothetical case, if that is preferable. I say that, in-
  254
  evitably, when the House is concerned to consider whether the Minister is right or wrong in the exercise of his functions under the Regulations, it may have to consider at one and the same time two distinct questions. One is: "Does the House wish the Government to fall?" The other is: "Was the particular exercise right or wrong?" A Member might very well think, and many did think in that instance, that the Government ought not to fall, because the purposes for which they were assembled and continued to exist were far more important than any detail then before the House, but nevertheless they thought that on that detail the Minister was wrong. How can a Member vote, in applying the judicial function to that incident? He had either to do violence to his view that the Government ought to remain in office, or to his view that, in a particular case, the Minister was mistaken. That is sufficient to make my point that the conditions on which alone judicial functions are exercised cannot be exercised in this House. That is the point I make.
  I have only one other point, which is on the same lines. It has been said that when a Regulation is made there may be a Prayer against it, and that the House is free to do what it wishes about it, which means that hon. Members are free; but if they do, will my right hon. Friend then go to a meeting somewhere else outside this Chamber, and say to that meeting: "My authority, my prestige and my influence are being undermined by the attack upon this Motion, and unless you withdraw that opposition or prospect of future opposition, penalties will be inflicted upon you." It is not in that way, under the three penalties and sanctions, that judicial functions can be exercised. I know I have spoken for a long time, but I hope I have spoken relevantly for a long time.
  I say that these matters lie at the very root of liberty. Power is an intoxicating thing. I think my right hon. Friend does his best to keep sober, but I do not think he always succeeds. I do not think that executive authority, organisations and institutions are really very fond of personal liberty. They regard it as a nuisance and an inconvenience, and a continual thorn in the side. Sometimes they call it a stab in the back. Only if there is persistence of criticism of that kind can liberty be maintained at all. I would end by reminding the House of a couplet from a

  255
  poem of William Blake's, which a distinguished, but I think a completely wrong-headed, recent author, prefixes to the title page of his book:
  "The strongest poison ever known
  Came from Caesar's laurel crown."
  Sir Percy Harris: My hon. Friend who has just spoken managed to generate a considerable amount of heat in what had hitherto been a rather unanimated discussion. There seems to be something like unanimity for the Motion, and my hon. Friend was in favour of the Motion although he wanted to cover a very much larger field. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that, in the middle of a great war, we can spend a day deciding to stand up for the rights of Parliament and for control of the Executive. I cannot help remembering that it is something like 14 years ago, in 1929, that the Select Committee was appointed under Lord Donoughmore to report on the growth of Ministers' powers. It was a very distinguished Committee, and represented all kinds of interests, including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin), the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security and a number of other distinguished men and women. The Report is known as the Donoughmore Report. It was Lord Justice Sir Leslie Scott who finally signed the Report as Chairman appointed on the retirement of Lord Donoughmore: I think it is common knowledge that Sir Leslie had a lot to do with the final form of the Report. That was published 12 years ago. It has needed a great war to stir the consciences of hon. Members opposite into activity.
  I remember a Debate which took place in the House of Commons in 1937. It was on a Friday, when the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Warfare moved a Resolution which now would have general consent, I suppose that, in the opinion of this House, the power of the Executive had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. I would remind the House that a similar Motion was passed by the House of Commons nearly i6o years ago. In 1937, in the piping times of peace, a number of hon. Members were oblivious to the dangers that lay ahead of us and, on the occasion I have mentioned, the House was counted out.
  Mr. Pickthorn: That is not always because of the topic.
  Sir P. Harris: It was a most appropriate topic in those days, because these Orders were being passed in great numbers. I am not finding fault, but it did need a great war to stir hon. Members opposite. The Committee on Ministers' Powers recommended a Standing Committee but this Motion recommends a Select Committee. I agree that there is no very vital difference, except that a Standing Committee is automatically appointed each Session without the intervention of the Whips. When there is a change in this House we want to be sure that the Committee does not fade away but shall come within the Standing Orders of the House. It would be an advantage to have a Standing Committee, whose functions it would be to examine and report on any proposal for delegated legislation, and also to examine Rules and Regulations as they are published by various Departments.
  So far so good, but I suggest to hon. Members who take an active interest that they should not be satisfied merely with the setting up of this Committee. The Donoughmore Committee recommended certain other things. It suggested that there should be precise limits set on the law-making power which Parliament intends to confer on a Minister, and that it should be specially defined in clear language by Statute. Secondly, that the use of what was called the Henry VIII Clause, which confers powers on the Minister to modify Acts of Parliament, should be abandoned in all except the most exceptional cases. Thirdly, that the use of Clauses designed to exclude the jurisdiction of courts—a point made by my hon. Friend above the Gangway in a long speech which was so exhaustive that he has had to leave the House—over the legality of the Regulation or Order, should be abandoned, again in all but exceptional cases. Fourthly, that Standing Orders of both Houses should require that any Bill which proposed to confer a lawmaking power, should be accompanied by a memorandum drawing attention to the power and explaining why this power is needed and how it will be exercised.
  I hope that when the Home Secretary replies he will deal with these four very important points. He should not feel that the House is satisfied with the setting up

  257
  of this very excellent Committee, which goes some way to meet our requirements. I want to impress on him that the House is very conscious that these great powers, which the House willingly gave in 1940 under the pressure of war, and in face of danger of invasion, should not go on after the Armistice is signed. No one is more keen that I am on the necessity for important post-war schemes, but Parliament, when the war danger is over, must resume its proper responsibility. It must not run away and hand over to Ministers the working out of details of legislation. I am greatly concerned to impress that on my right hon. Friend, because I think most hon. Members have overlooked a very interesting Annexe to the Report on Ministers' Powers. I specially recommend its study. It is signed by the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Lady who so loyally serves my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Home Security. Some very remarkable things are said there. She makes several suggestions in that Annexe. She says that Parliament can only deal effectively with the principles and general plan of proposed legislation, and she says:
  "In my view it would be better if the Committee stage of a Bill, as we now understand it, did not come before Parliament at all."
  What is very significant is that Professor Laski, who is, I understand—or was—the principal economic adviser to the Labour Party, agreed with this emphasis on the desirability of delegated legislation. I have picked out a phrase or two, but it is significant that the hon. Lady made 'these recommendations. I want to retain the Committee stage of all Bills. In. spite of the war I think this examination by the representatives of the people, by Members of Parliament, is one of our main duties and responsibilities. We cannot hand over those responsibilities to Ministers to work out in detail, to embody in Rules and Regulations on the offchance that they may be examined by the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend will no doubt tell us that he visualises—I hope he does—great constructive legislation after the war. I am all in favour of it, and I will back him in it, but I do not want to hand over these constructive schemes to individual Ministers of the Executive. I want to keep the control of the House of Commons.
  258
  We have abandoned the very useful machinery of Grand Committees, it may be inevitably, under the pressure of war, though I do not see why in war there should not be sittings of Grand Committees. After the war, I maintain that the full machinery of Grand Committees should be re-started. Then the need, the necessity and excuse for these Rules and Regulations, the handing over of the details of Acts of Parliament to the Executive, will disappear. I have a shrewd suspicion that my right hon. Friend will accept this Motion; I. hope he will, in addition, give us an assurance on the other points I have made and particularly assure us that he does not propose to extend this bad practice of divorcing Parliament from the responsibility of examining proposals in detail, and handing it over to officials in Government offices.
  The nation is now thoroughly stirred, thoroughly alarmed, at the encroachment of the Executive on the liberties of the subject. It has taken a long time to stir them, but there is scarcely a household in the land, scarcely a business man, manufacturer or industrialist, who does not find himself up against the autocratic powers exercised by Ministers under the powers invested in them in 1940. I shall not trouble the House with examples, but I have here some of the Orders issued by the Board of Trade and they are very remarkable. The unfortunate exporter never knows what commodity he can export, where he can export it to, when he can export it and on what condition. These Orders, inevitably, no doubt in war-time, come out like minute guns. But when the war is over we are going to clip the wings of the Board of Trade, and the only way we can do that is to take back to ourselves the rights, duties and responsibilities of examining all legislation, and cutting down to the bone the power of Ministers to legislate by Rules and Regulations.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has referred to one or two matters with which I shall be dealing in the course of my speech. It is, of course, the case that the Donoughmore Report was presented in, I think, 1932, and no action has so far been taken about it. I do not know why,

  259
  because I was not a member of the Government between then and the war, and indeed during a good deal of that period, I was not even a Member of the House. But I remember that Sidney Webb used to say that if a report is unanimous, and on the whole everybody accepts it, and if you find it implemented in 20 years, good progress has, on the whole, been made. So perhaps it is not too bad, but there it is. With regard to Grand Committees upstairs, I quite agree with my right hon. Friend: I would not abandon the Committee stage of Bills, which I think is a valuable and useful stage. We have not decided as a Government that Grand Committees upstairs are not to be resumed. The situation is that the nature of the legislation and the circumstances have not been propitious up to now. But the Government have a perfectly open mind and are willing to consider the matter through the usual channels from time to time.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the conferring of powers on officials. The making of these Regulations is not the responsibility of officials but the responsibility of Ministers, and I think I can say broadly that Ministers supervise this function, as indeed is their duty. I think we have had a useful and valuable Debate on a subject which is not free from its difficulties, but it is a subject of the very greatest importance in our constitutional life, and in our Parliamentary procedure. On the whole, it has been a peaceful Debate. The nearest to a little warmth was stirred up by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). He supported the Motion, and apparently, as the price of his support, he was going to have a row about it somehow, or with somebody, and on the whole he succeeded. But his speech, I thought, with you, Sir, was for a good deal of the time rather away from the general course of the Debate, and I am not sure that I need refer to it in detail.
  The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) opened this Debate in a speech which, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) was reasonable, constructive, good spirited and, I think, a very able contribution to this problem, on which I would congratulate him. Indeed, I think that, substantially speaking, I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said.
  260
  He put to me a number of points which I will cover in the course of my reply. He referred to the necessity for the Committee if it were to be appointed to function in a judicial spirit. To that I shall return. I would emphasise that, as he said, this is a profoundly important aspect of the matter and should be kept in mind. I personally am not disposed to agree that the House of Commons, even the full House of Commons, let alone a small committee, is incapable of manifesting a judicial spirit when the circumstances require it. I agree that it is perhaps not possible for every Member of the House to exercise a judicial spirit, but taking the House by and large, in my experience, when I have had to submit a matter to the House on a sort of quasi-judicial basis I have found the House as a whole responsive and ready to consider the matter fairly and in a judicial spirit.
  Therefore, I agree with what my hon. Friend said about this. He referred to my own speech last year, and he indicated points upon which he put another point of view. I hope it will encourage my hon. Friend and give him good cheer if I tell him straight away that I myself, on behalf of the Government, will be able to take a somewhat different view to-day from that which I have taken hitherto. It shows that the Government are always willing to move with the times, and to recognise changes of circumstances and admit that what cannot be done at one time it may be possible to do at another. I think that is the spirit in which we should go along. I say that in order to make my hon. Friend happy as soon as I can. The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) said that there was no real classification of the various instruments of delegated legislation which are now used. I do not know that I would go as far as he went, but I think that he has a point. I think there may perhaps be need for a more logical handling of the preparation of Parliamentary Bills and subordinate legislation. I will undertake to go into that with my colleagues and see if we can reach a rather higher and more uniform standard in that respect. It is not too easy. As the House will appreciate, Bills are handled in different Departments, but it is a fair point, and I will see what can be done about it.

  261
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kennington, who, I thought, made a very useful and sound contribution to the Debate, also dealt with the problem of classification, not only from this point of view but also from the point of view of the difficulty—to which I will come later—of distinguishing between some of these instruments that should rightly go to a Committee, and trying to make them all go, which, I am sure, would choke the Committee, and would not enable it to discharge its work well. That point will be considered, and I will have something to say about it later. The hon. and gallant Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) raised the point whether this should be a House of Commons Committee alone, or a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses. What I propose to do is to put the pros and cons of that matter to the House—it is an important point, to which we have given some attention—and I assure the House that the Government will take into account the views that have been expressed and act in accordance with what appears to be the spirit and the wish of the House.
  The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) supported the Motion, which is another sign of the great unity there is between all parts of the House on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin) also referred to the Donoughmore Report, and said that he thought that in some ways the framing of these Orders was equivalent to the discussion of Clauses on the Committee stage of a Bill. There is something in that in this time of war, but I think that in the ordinary way, in peace-time, as distinct from war-time, the subject-matter of Regulations is less important than the subject-matter of Bills.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) mentioned another Report, which is not unrelated to this problem, namely, the Report of the Committee on Procedure on Public Business, presided over by the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That was an exceedingly important Report, and I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member that, if we are to make Parliament the fully efficient, effective instrument of the popular will that we want it to be—and do not let us underestimate
  262
  how far it is an instrument of the popular will—the procedure of the House will require to be considered in many ways, as well as the issue of delegated legislation. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) referred to his Amendment, and, in a short speech, stressed the point that that raised. But, if I may refer to the proposal which he made, in his speech and in his Amendment, I would suggest to him that, on reflection, he may be disposed to agree that it is rather an impossible proposition. Suppose some Order or Regulation comes out, and is operative, and then stands referred to the Select Committee. The Select Committee decides to call the attention of the House to it, and the operation of the Order ceases. Then the Order comes before the House. The Minister may convince the House that the Order is right, and then it operates again. That might lead to great difficulties, and ingenious as it is I think it would not be a workable proposition. If I do not refer in further detail, except incidentally, to the admirable speeches which have been made, perhaps the House will forgive me, as I think I shall, in the course of my speech, be able to cover the various points and suggestions which have been urged.
  A year ago this month, there was a very full Debate on this matter, on a Motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) and other hon. Members, which, in broad terms, declared
  "that Parliament should vigilantly maintain its ancient right and duty of examining legislation, whether delegated or otherwise."
  We heard, in that Debate, very much the same proposal as we are discussing to-day; but at that time the Government felt that, in view of the nature and the quantity of Defence Regulations which were being turned out, we could not return a favourable answer to the proposal. Nevertheless, it was a valuable Debate. It contributed to Parliamentary and public knowledge of the problem; and, in our conclusions to-day, I am sure we shall all have been helped by the discussion that took place then. Let me make it clear that the Government, including myself, are most anxious that delegated legislation shall be subject to effective Parliamentary checks and, wherever necessary, effective Parliamentary control. I hope I am too good a democrat

  263
  and Parliamentarian to wish anything else; and, even if I were not, there are plenty of my colleagues in the Government who would restrain me if I were to go on a wrong path. Last year, on behalf of the Government, I made some proposals which met with the approval of the House and which indicated the importance we attached to clarity in this matter, so that Parliament might know what was happening and might understand what we were doing. We promised these changes: First, that every effort would be made to make the effect of Defence Regulations and subordinate Orders as clear as possible, and that we would append, where appropriate, explanatory notes to these Regulations and Orders. That we have done, and I think it has been helpful to hon. Members.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Except in one or two cases.
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend does not give me a completely clean bill of health, but I gather that we are not far off. We also said that, where a matter dealt with was one of importance, we would deal with it by Defence Regulation rather than by subordinate Order under a Defence Regulation; and that promise, I think, has been honoured. We promised that we would do our best to see that subordinate Orders under Defence Regulations should be specific in scope. We said that, if there was strong Parliamentary feeling, we would agree to provide time, where we could, for the discussion of important subordinate Orders, even where there was no right of discussing them by Prayer and no right of affirmative Resolution. That, I think, has not arisen, except in one case, on which there was an exciting Debate, to which I will refer later. Another change which we have made is that each Defence Regulation is printed separately and identifiable.
  The issue to-day is whether some new and additional check can be introduced, as a practicable proposal. I quite agree that that is a fair request to make. It is, I think, a particularly fair request to make to the present Home Secretary, because I am, quite frankly, an advocate of the proper and adequate use of delegated legislation, under proper conditions. In some of my public speeches I have given expression to those views, and I
  264
  know that not every Member of the House would agree with them—although some hon. Members have, I think, misunderstood the degree of my swing to the left in this matter. I am still well on the left of the general course of this Debate. But the view that I take, and I think I can fairly say the view that the Government take, and the general, though not the universal, view of the House of Commons, is that delegated legislation, within limits that may be disputable, is necessary and inevitable. Not only is it necessary and inevitable under modern conditions, but I believe that it has been knocking about in one form or another for several centuries.
  In modern conditions it is increasingly inevitable, for several reasons. One is that the amount of legislation considered to be necessary has increased; and I think it is likely to continue to increase. I quite agree that there are differences of view among Members as to whether, if we had less legislation, things would be better or worse—that is a fair issue for argument—but I think that the House, broadly speaking, will agree that the tendency is for legislation to increase, and the probability is that, in spite of the wishes of some hon. Members, it will increase. It has been the case that the amount of important legislation that could be got through in a Session has been limited. The question is whether this limitation on the amount of legislation will satisfy the needs and demands of the country in future. The second reason is that the character of modern legislation is changing. I remember the Road Traffic Bill of 1930, which I introduced and got through, when I was Minister of Transport. It was a biggish Bill, and in many places in the Bill there was power to make Regulations. I do not remember that I had much trouble about it in those days; things were pretty quiet on the Regulation front then. It was proper that that Bill should include much regulation-making power. Here was a subject in which technical development, engineering development, was changing week by week. What was right at one time might be wrong six months after.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington very rightly said, where changes are likely to occur, if you have dealt with the matter by Regulation, and it is clear that circumstances have changed so as to warrant an alteration,

  265
  you can do it easily. Otherwise, the injustice or the silliness would have to go on. I do not think that there is a Minister on this bench, certainly not one in charge of an administrative Department, who could not name 12 matters, coming under his Department, on which the law is wrong and that he cannot change unjust or clumsy legislation as he would like to do. Instead, he has to wait until the time arrives when he can introduce a Bill. Delegated legislation incidentally, may enable the Government to put right matters which affect the interests of trade and commerce as well. When we come to deal with social insurance, I do not know what power there will be to make Regulations, but I am certain that there ought to be a fair amount of regulating power, so that we can adapt as we go along. Therefore, I suggest to the House that it is perfectly fair and legitimate that there should be differences of opinion on the amount of delegated legislation, its nature and its purpose, and, as I advocate and as the Government contemplate, it will have to increase and will tend to expand. I entirely agree that it is perfectly fair for hon. Members to say that the Government have got to find some way, agreed with the House, whereby additional Parliamentary checks can be devised to hold the position more securely.
  Mr. Montague: Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather confusing Acts of Parliament with' Regulations and Orders? Are they not two different things?
  Mr. Morrison: They are two different things, I agree, but I do not think I was confusing them. I was only indicating that it is often more convenient to deal with an administrative matter by a Regulation than by a permanent statutory provision in an Act of Parliament. Indeed, the Donoughmore Committee itself agreed and laid down much of what I have been saying to the House to-day. Next, we must distinguish clearly between war-time emergency powers and peacetime non-emergency powers. Under the various Defence Regulations, for example, I have powers at the present time which it would not be defensible that I should have in time of peace. [Interruption.] I quite agree, especially as regards those bearing upon the liberty of the subject. Moreover, some of the powers in some
  266
  Defence Regulations are so substantial that in peace-time the House, and quite rightly, would not permit them to be conferred by Regulation at all. That is reasonable, too. There is, therefore, a distinction between war and peace, and to-day we have to bear in mind not only the circumstances of war, but whether the instrument we are setting up is devised for the purposes of peace. Earlier in the war Parliament gave to the Executive very large powers—and I think quite rightly—and a considerable freedom, for which we are grateful, and for which everybody else ought to be grateful too, but which, now, Parliament would be more sticky about. But now we have reached a stage in the war when the House wishes to get things more into its own hands, and it is up to a point natural, reasonable, and perhaps inevitable that this should be so. We can now, in the new circumstances, review the situation. The making of regulations may well be a pressing matter in the transition period, both because of the amount of the legislation which will have to be carried out, and which will probably be needed, and also because the question will be important, in relation to a great number of economic matters, which may be of the greatest difficulty in the difficult and changing situation caused by the transition from war to the greater stability of peace.
  In the first place, I want to deal with scope. I do not think my hon. Friend the Mover quite admitted it to be so, but the Motion is naturally framed in general terms, and, technically, it may be interpreted to mean that the Committee should deal with all forms of Statutory Rules and Orders, including those subordinate or minor in importance. I do not think that the House means that every conceivable Rule and Order should go to the Committee, for the very good reason that, as I have said, it would congest the Committee, and if the Committee was congested with the number of instruments it had to consider, it would find it difficult to do its work adequately on those of the instruments which were important and ought to be carefully examined. Therefore, I suggest to the House that there will have to be some classification, if we can find it, and we shall learn as we go along from experience.
  We suggest that the Commitee will wish to see two important classes of orders,

  267
  and I think that, for the time being, that ought to meet the bill. They are classes to which Parliament has obviously attached importance when the Statute has been passed. The first group is the group of Regulations or Orders which Parliament has stipulated cannot be effective unless approved by an affirmative resolution. The Government propose that the whole of these Regulations should go to the Committee. There is a second, and I think, still larger number, certainly at the present time, namely, those against which hon. Members have the right of raisins either a Prayer or a negative resolution. We suggest that they should go to the scrutinising committee as well. I suggest to the House that this does go a long way and covers the big issues of policy. It will be for the Government and the House, as Bills come along, to watch each Regulation to see which is in one category and which in another. There are, I admit, a large number of subordinate Orders under the main Orders in Council, which have to be laid before Parliament but about which there is no provision for Parliament to do anything. I admit that some are of importance, but for the most part they are of rather less importance and do not raise issues of principle. It is interesting to note that the phrase "laid before Parliament" used in Statutes comes from the Rules Publication Act, and, in fact, the purpose of that Act, in providing that Rules shall be laid before Parliament, was in order that the public outside might know about these things—not that Parliament might know about them. That is a by-product of the Rules Publication Act. We suggest that, if the Government goes as far as this the House will have its rights.
  Of course, all of these issues connected with subordinate orders can be raised at Question Time, by Debates on the Motion for the Adjournment, on Supply Days and by Motions, if time can be obtained from the Government. I would give one instance already referred to—the decision I reached on the conditional release of Sir Oswald Mosley. It was, as a matter of fact, done by Order. It was not an Order which required an affirmative Resolution of Parliament, or a negative Resolution; it did not even require to be laid before Parliament. It was a purely administrative act—an Order to effect which my signature was sufficient. But it was per-
  268
  fectly clear, and I was not surprised, that there was strong feeling about it among various hon. Members in the House. The Government willingly gave time for a Debate and there was a vote. So it always will be when there is strong feeling about subjects on which action may be taken under delegated legislation, because always, of course, we come back to the point that no Government can live for long without the goodwill of the House, and that in itself is perhaps one of the best guarantees of our liberties. Thus the Government think that the time has come when we should accept the establishment of—and we should all do our best successfully to work it—a scrutinising committee as proposed by my hon. Friend in his Motion. There are one or two things I would like to say about it. It is of course for the House to determine, but I think the numbers of the Committee ought to be limited. If numbers are large it will inevitably tend to become a debating assembly and it will not be easy for it to maintain that high judicial spirit which everybody has urged it should endeavour to do. It is a question of building up a tradition. If the tradition behind this Commitee is all right, then, after two or three years, we need not worry further about the committee going astray. I think that tradition in these matters, just as in the work of public administration, means infinitely more than Standing Orders or even Acts of Parliament.
  It will, be important that the Committee should recognise one or two things. One is that it will be dealing with legislation which the Executive is authorised to make pursuant to an Act of Parliament. There would clearly be an impossible situation if the merits of an Act of Parliament were to be re-debated in the Select Committee, because it would then become an instrument in the party game and perhaps of obstruction against the Executive. It would not be right, and I am sure it is not intended by hon. Members, to propose that, but, it is well that this should be understood by everybody at the beginning, as I feel quite sure it is. The time for arguing about a Bill is when the Bill is before Parliament. Once a Bill is passed and becomes an Act, the Government of the day have to work it, and the rest of you have to put up with it. Yet the House has the right to try and get matters put right by Parliamentary means the same as those by which the Act was passed.

  269
  The function of the scrutinising Committee is therefore to protect the authority of Parliament and not the interests of a particular party or group. One point raised in this connection—indeed it was discussed last year, and I appreciate the spirit behind the proposal—is that we should not give the Committee the power to send for persons or papers. I appreciate that the motive of hon. Members is to help the Government in all ways possible, and particularly to help them to accept this Motion. But we feel that we ought to be rather more generouseven than the Motion on the Paper and that having come clean, we had better come properly clean.
  We think that the Committee should not have the power to send for Ministers. The place for Ministers to argue is at this Box and, moreover, subject to the House, they have to have the last word on the Floor of the House, if the matter comes to an issue. If they have been upstairs, everybody might be embarrassed. But it is important that there shall be at the service of the scrutinising Committee officers from the Departments who can give them information, technical or otherwise, give them the background, and answer questions. I would go further than that. It would be undesirable for the Committee to draw the special attention of the House to any Regulation unless it has either heard an officer of the Department or seen a Memorandum put in by the Department. The Committee should have the right to send for an officer from the Department or ask for a memorandum, and the Department also should have the right to send an officer or a memorandum, if the Committee says, "Look here, we are thinking seriously about this, and we had better know more about it." The Department ought to be warned and have the right to attend. When I say "information" I mean factual information, but I do not mean the files of the Department or the advice of the civil servant to the Minister. Much of the value of the advice of civil servants to Ministers comes from the fact that it is meant for his eye alone and if it is to be seen by somebody else they will cease to be as frank and direct as they often are in their minutes, much to the public advantage. The ordinary departmental files and papers, therefore, must be protected, and we must see that the Committee does not have the right to ask for them.
  Sir P. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to move Amendments to this Motion if it is passed in its present form?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I will tell the House later what I would like it to do with the Motion, but we are not proposing to move Amendments.
  Sir H. Holdsworth: Do I understand that the machinery which is proposed to be set up will in no way affect the right of a Member to put down a Prayer? Will that right still remain?
  Mr. Morrison: No, it will not affect that right at all. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who has been something of a pioneer in this matter, have been acting as a sort of unofficial scrutinising committee for quite a time and have kept Ministers busy. As I understand the proposal—that is our interpretation of it, and I think it is the interpretation of hon. Members—the Committee will have these Orders before them and they will examine them in the ways I have indicated. They will decide which they are to make any comment upon and to which they will for some reason or other draw the attention of the House. Their report will be completed and presented to the House. As far as the duties of the Committee are concerned, I understand that that finishes them. They make a report to the House for the reason that it is difficult for Members to keep on the track of all these Orders; it is for the aid and assistance of the House as a whole.
  Mr. Denman: Meanwhile the Order operates?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, it operates. There is a report. Then the responsibility for action on the Floor of the House, either by moving a negative Resolution or putting down a Prayer, passes to where it is already—to the individual Member of the House. All this, from the first consideration of the Regulation or Order to the presentation of the report and action by any individual Member, can be arranged to take place within the allotted span of time.
  Sir H. Holdsworth: I want to be clear whether, when a Member thinks a Prayer is sufficient, there is any obligation on that Member to wait for the report of the Committee.
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, certainly not. It may be that in the arrangement of Business it will be for the convenience of the hon. Member and the House to wait until the Committee report. There is no reason why a Member should not use his own judgment and do it as soon as he likes.
  Sir C. MacAndrew: I wonder whether this Committee should not have the assistance of Mr. Speaker's counsel and also the assistance of counsel to the Lord Chancellor?
  Mr. Morrison: I am coming to that later. The next point which has been raised, and to which I will refer, is the question of whether it shall be a Committee of this House or a Joint Committee of both Houses. I want to be quite fair so I will put the pros and cons. There is this case for a Joint Select Committee. At present, another place has a Committee on special Orders in a restricted field—gas, electricity, water Orders, and that kind of thing. I understand it has worked quite well and that the opinion of their Lordships is that it has been very judicial and effective.
  If we set up a Committee I do not know whether another place will wish also to set up a Committee similar to ours; it may be so. In that case, there will be the disadvantage that civil servants may be summoned to appear at two committees instead of one. Memoranda, of course, can go to two committees just as easily as to one. There may be some inconvenience if a Committee reports one way to one House and another way to another, and it has to be remembered that, apart from financial matters, another place has just as much power to upset Regulations as has the House of Commons—both Houses are on a basis of complete equality except in regard to financial matters. Therefore, from that point of view, there is a case to be made for a Joint Select Committee. It might simplify the situation and might work very well. On the other hand, it occurs to the Government that, at any rate at the beginning, the House of Commons would sooner have its own separate Committee, subject to reconsideration later on if the House wishes. Hon. Members may feel that there are various matters in this field which are rather specially House of Commons matters, and that they want to
  272
  have their own Committee. If the view of the House generally is that the House of Commons would prefer to have its own Committee, the Government are perfectly willing to abide by whatever is the general opinion of the House on the subject.
  Another question of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire has reminded me—indeed it was mentioned last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Ralph Etherton)—is whether we could not have some assistance for the Committee other than, and in addition to, the House of Commons Committee Clerk, who would, of course, be provided. The House of Commons Committee Clerks are an admirable body of men. We all owe much to them. Their duties are the keeping of records, the keeping of minutes, advice to Chairmen of Committees on Standing Orders, and certain other technical points, but they are essentially recording angels; they do not deal, and quite rightly so, with matters which, may I say, verge upon policy. These would be outside their sphere. I doubt whether the House of Commons Committee Clerk, valuable and excellent as he is, could give to the Committee the kind of help which my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford had in mind and which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned to-day. The Government have, therefore, considered whether an independent officer could be present at the Committee's meetings as adviser to the Committee, not a Government man, but there for the purpose of advising the chairman and to give information to the Member on facts, legal background, technical considerations and so on. It has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, as it was by the hon. Member for Stretford last year, that in view of his unique experience and special ability, which is known to a large number of Members of the House, if Mr. Speaker were willing, then Mr. Speaker's counsel might be a most valuable person to act as adviser to the Committee over the field which I have indicated.
  In anticipation of that being the wish of the House, I have seen Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to tell the House that Mr. Speaker is agreeable, if the House wishes, to place Sir Cecil Carr at the disposal of the Committee on the lines which I have mentioned. I am sure the House will be grateful to Mr. Speaker. I am glad the

  273
  suggestion has been so well received by hon. Members. For those who may not know, I should say that Sir Cecil Carr was editor of "Revised Statutes" and editor of "Statutory Rules and Orders"—this is very relevant to this matter—from 1923 to 1943; he has been counsel to Mr. Speaker since 1943 and Chairman of the Statute Law Committee since 1943. His qualifications are thus, I think, admirable for the purpdse, apart from the fact that we know he is personally acceptable to us all in this capacity. I have seen Sir Cecil Carr and he himself is perfectly willing and very happy to give the committee all the assistance he can.
  The next question—and with this I come to the end of what I have to say—is the terms of reference. I cannot be final about them. They will present us with some difficulties, because somehow we must avoid getting terms of reference under which the issues of the principal Statute can be argued over again. Some of the terms of reference will have to be specific. It may be that we shall be driven at the end to add an omnibus Clause which will cover a fair variety of other matters which we cannot foresee, but as long as we understand that we are going to function within the limits I have laid down, the terms of reference will not matter so much.
  Here are two specific suggestions we make for the consideration of the Committee:
  1 Whether the subordinate legislation imposes a charge on the public revenues, or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent, or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments.
  That, we think, might be one specific item. The other is:
  2. Whether the subordinate legislation is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period.
  A Regulation like this is clearly one which ought to be looked at with care because, if the courts cannot intervene, Parliament must be careful before it finally lets the matter out of its grip.
  274
  One point I would add is that the terms of reference must be such that the Committee does not try to do the work of the courts of law. It is not for the Committee to decide—indeed, it is not for Parliament to decide what is the proper, legal interpretation of a Statute, or whether Regulations are within the legal terms of the Statute. That is for the courts, and it is constitutionally of the greatest importance that the independence and freedom from Parliamentary interference of the courts, even to the extent of Parliament not trying to interpret the law, should be guarded otherwise we might be in some difficulty. There are other questions which we shall have to consider; for example, whether the subordinate legislation contains any matter so foreign to the intention of Parliament in conferring the enabling power, that the attention of Parliament ought to be called to it. Hon. Members may have other suggestions to make.
  In all the circumstances I think the House will agree that, broadly speaking, the Government have met not ungenerously the request which has been made not from one party alone but from all parts of the House. In the circumstances, I hope that the Motion moved by my hon. Friend may, at some appropriate stage in our discussion, be withdrawn by leave of the House, because it does not quite fit what we want to do. What we want to do is broadly acceptable to the movers of the Motion.
  In conclusion, may I say that the working, the operation of the British Constitution and the British Parliamentary system is one of the most fascinating subjects of study that one can find. It is our capacity for adapting our Parliamentary institutions, even our Constitution, as we go along, it is our adaptability, which has saved our democracy on more than one occasion; it is the power to give up part of our democracy in times of war and crisis which has saved our democracy for the time when the war or the crisis is finished. Here we are to-day in a friendly way arguing out and discussing how we can contemplate the development of delegated legislation with greater happiness by providing additional Parliamentary checks and Parliamentary information and publicity and light upon the subject. I think the discussion has been admirable in spirit, and we shall bring forward the appropriate Motion as early as possible. The

  275
  Committee will be set up and its Members must be selected with care. It is necessary that the Committee itself should take a high view of its duties; it should build up a good tradition. I feel certain that, if that be done, we shall have added not a brake upon the working of our Parliamentary and legislative institutions, hut a device and an additional safeguard, which will serve the nation and Parliament in good stead in the future. I thank the House for the good spirit in which the subject has been discussed, and in view of the assurance which I have given and the fact that there is general agreement, I hope that in due course my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw the Motion which is the subject of our Debate.
  Sir Herbert Williams: I have no desire to make a speech because others of my friends are going to contribute later to this discussion. As I think many hon. Members know, I have taken a substantial interest in this problem over a long period of time. I have had the privilege of presiding over a group of private Members who have tried to watch this problem, I hope impartially. I want to thank the Home Secretary for his very forthcoming speech. I think, in the main, he has met the major problem. He is looking to peace-time rather than wartime, and there will still remain the problem of subsidiary legislation. So far as that is concerned, there is no proper Parliamentary opportunity open for a discussion of it. It may be necessary for my Friends and myself to keep a watch on the subsidiary legislation and to ask various questions from time to time. With that cautionary remark, may I say how very grateful I am to the Home Secretary for his most forthcoming speech to-day?
  Sir Reginald Clarry: I rise for only a short time to deal with a point raised in the discussion by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). If I heard him aright he said that Members on this side of the House were concerned only with the protection of property, and not with safeguarding the liberty of the subject. I have taken the opportunity in the last hour of searching the records, so far as I can, and on the basis that Prayers are the touchstone of the interest in the House on Regulations and Orders, I have ascertained that during the 1942–43 Session there have been 10
  276
  Prayers, one coming from the other side, dealing with venereal disease, and the other nine coming from this side of the House. Among other things, they dealt with shipping and personal restrictions; road traffic, with particular regard to the speed of agricultural vehicles; billeting and the requisitioning of houses for billeting; the Government's nomination of directors to control factories; fuel consumption and inspection; the British Overseas Airways Corporation and its constitution; trespass on agricultural crops; and with fireguard duties.
  I put this forward merely to deny the statement made so often by Members on the other side that this side of the House only raises questions of delegated legislation to protect property, and not to protect the rights and liberties of the subject. From the evidence shown I deny that absolutely. There has been only one Prayer during the present Session, and it dealt with road haulage. Although that dealt with property it concerned the small man's property, and was not raised in the interest of big business.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am sorry to inject a slight element of discord into the chorus of general approval which has fallen upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whose proposal for this Committee has been welcomed, particularly in certain quarters of the House. I have always looked upon my right hon. Friend, from his week-end orations over a series of months, as leading forward opinion in this country, as travelling in a Leftward direction. It has been rumoured that by reason of that he has, on occasion, found himself in certain difficulties, and I am glad that by travelling a little to the Right to-day he has restored the balance. But this proposal for a Committee will not solve the problems which have been adumbrated by the mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson).
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member's speech, during which he gave two concrete instances of the application of Regulations which met with tremendous approval and caused considerable ribaldry on the other side of the House. One was the case of a man who had given his daughter two pounds of pork from a pig which he himself had bred, and the other was the case of a baker who was

  277
  fined for selling doughnuts sprinkled over with sugar. They were both breaches of perfectly intelligible rules. A moment's thought and examination by the people who are now to examine these Regulations and Orders would show that if the Minister of Food were once to concede that rationed goods could be given as gifts then you could drive a coach and horses through the whole rationing scheme of this country. Not even the Committee, with the assistance it has been promised, would have been able to say, on looking at the Regulation, that it was likely to prevent a man giving presents of food to his own family. Where do we get the protection there? The Regulation is quite plain. There must be no sugar decorations on the food that is sold. Would it have occurred in the Committee, with the advice that it is going to get, that this might give rise to the problem that you can put something into a doughnut that you cannot put on top of it? The only specific problem mentioned by the mover would not be countered in any way by the suggested Committee.
  The second comment that I have to make is this. The Home Secretary tells us he hopes this is going to form part of the edifice of Parliament. May I remind him of what he said a year ago, when this very proposal was being considered? One of the major reasons which weighed with him and with many others was that the setting up of such a Committee would subject delegated legislation to delay and embarrassment. How is it that this very same machinery is not going to subject delegated legislation to delay and embarrassment to-day? That is the very reason why the proposal was so warmly welcomed and cheered on those benches. They do not want to see post-war legislation run through at the rate that we do. That is why they desire to have something which will provide delay and embarrassment, as the Home Secretary said. I hope, at any rate, that when the Committee is set up, as it will be now that the Government have made up their mind to concede the demand, that will not prevent the progress that has taken place in the making of these Orders and Regulations more intelligible. I am grateful that some improvements are taking place but there is still a great deal to be desired. I wonder what the Committee will do when it gets an Order of the kind of No. 1216 of 1943:
  278
  "The Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails No. 5 Order, 1942(a), as varied by the Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails No. 6 Order, 1942(b), the Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails No. 7 Order, 1942(c), the Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails No, 8 Order, 1942(d), and the Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails No. 9 Order, 1942(e), is hereby further varied in the Third Schedule thereto by substituting for the reference 2A therein the reference 2A (i) and by deleting therefrom the reference 2B.
  This Order shall come into force on the 25th day of August, 1943, and may be cited as the Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails No. 10 Order, 1943,' and this Order and the Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails Nos. 5–9 Orders, 1942, may be cited together as the Control of Tins, Cans, Kegs, Drums and Packaging Pails Nos. 5–10 Order, 1942–3."
  For the guidance of the House I will read the explanatory note:
  "The above Order enables tin plate to be used for tobacco and snuff tins others than cutter lid tobacco tins."
  I suggest that there is still room for improvement in the drafting of these Orders so that they may be intelligible. I would also urge that, apart from the Committee, Ministers responsible for delegated legislation should make far wider use of the power that they have to make explanatory statements when introducing Regulations of importance, and that on the major Regulations they should publish White Papers, so that Members should be alive to their import. The explanatory memorandum which I have read is, of course, just one sentence. The Home Secretary is to be commended upon the explanatory memorandum that he issued when the Fire Watching Regulations were published a year ago in order that everyone could understand them. They were not meant to be understood by the public. They were meant to be understood by those who administered them or those interested in them, and that was followed up by explanatory circulars directed to the people specifically affected.
  This is, I fear, the thin end of the wedge for the obstruction of necessary post-war legislation. When the Home Secretary said this procedure was being devised for a time of peace there were cries of "No." Why? There will be more obstruction to come. We have heard in the course of the Debate references to increasing delegated legislation, which every sensible person realises must come in a greater spate when the war is over. I could

  279
  quote the Home Secretary himself on the point.
  Sir H. Holdsworth: That is no reason why it should not be examined.
  Mr. Hughes: Examination is only an excuse to cover obstruction and delay. It has been said that this kind of procedure is going. to defend the liberty of people—as if delegated legislation were an infringement of liberty. The propaganda in the House to-day has been far more clever and adroit than the general propaganda in the country, with pamphlets and articles in the Press conveying the implication that delegation is something that is trampling the liberty of the individual underfoot. Delegated legislation is to a large extent responsible for the liberty of the individual. Let me give an example. Before the war, before any of this temporary legislation, there is a man working in the tailoring trade. Without delegated legislation he would have liberty to work for the lowest wage, liberty to be employed at any rate that lie would be prepared to take. But the delegated legislation of the trade board guarantees him a minimum. Where is the liberty?
  Mr. Levy: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend as a distinguished lawyer whether he agrees with some of this delegated legislation which is outside the discretion of the courts? The courts have held that if they had the power they would not have convicted, but that they were forced to convict because they had no discretionary power. Is that in accordance with the liberty of the subject?
  Mr. Hughes: I confess that I do not understand the point of that interruption. I will come back to the trade boards.
  Mr. Levy: Answer the question.
  Mr. Hughes: I will answer it, but 'I will come back to the trade boards. When a statutory wage has been fixed under delegated legislation by the trade boards, an employer who employs a person in contravention of it makes himself liable to a penalty and can be brought before a court. An additional offence has been created. Magistrates may think it regrettable that an employer should be punished for not getting the cheapest labour possible, but still, according to the law, the
  280
  employer must be penalised for a breach of the law. Is there anything wrong with that? Take another case, that of a man on woodwork. Let him work in a factory where there is no protection on the machinery, where a circular saw is whirling round with no protection. That man has liberty. The woodworking Regulations under the Factories Act, which are delegated legislation, provide that there must be protection for that machinery. Where is the liberty? The liberty to work with an unprotected circular saw, or the liberty to work where the saw by law must be protected? That is delegated legislation. Suppose an accident happens. Suppose a man catches dermatitis. Why should he not have the liberty to be employed somewhere where he can catch the disease without any recovery against his employer? That would be liberty. By delegated legislation under Orders made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, dermatitis is a certifiable disease. How is that an interference with a man's liberty?
  Take the house to which the man goes back at the end of his day's work. Why should he not have the liberty to live in a house without any water, with no lavatory and no sanitation? Why should not the landlord be at liberty to build houses of that kind and to let them? But the delegated legislation of the by-laws compels the builder to guarantee that there shall be sanitation and water. In the face of that, can it be said that delegated legislation by itself is an infringement of liberty? It is because I am not satisfied with the motives of those who are now pleading for the need of further restrictions upon delegated legislation, or that their motive is the liberty of the subject, but because I am satisfied that what they want to do is to obstruct as far as they can the necessary social legislation of this country, that I regret the concession which the Government have made.
  Mr. MacLaren: I have listened to this Debate all day and I must say that the Home Secretary's speech was rather a shock to me. After reading the speeches which he has delivered during week-ends, I wondered where the Home Secretary was going to end. Apparently today he has changed his views, and now a Committee is to be set up. For more years than I care to count, long before I came into this House, I used to take an

  281
  active interest in this question of the power of the Commons passing into the hands of officials. I have said before, and I say it again, that if the British people should cease to exist and the name of our race became a mere mark on the pages of history, it would have to be recorded that the one great gift which the British people gave to mankind was the British Constitution. Anything that weakens this Constitution of ours, in my opinion, weakens the very foundation of the lighthouse of liberty shining at this moment in a dark world. Let us preserve the power of this House. We have seen delegated authority encroaching step by step. Why? We have heard a speech to-day bringing in this Motion which was very well put and well argued, but may I get behind the Motion and get to the causes that have given rise to this Debate?
  I must ask the House to pardon me, but I must say this. This House of Commons has always been afraid to challenge the root causes of the maldistribution of wealth in this society of ours. Therefore, when we have maldistribution of wealth and unjust relationships in society, the House, by the very growth of humanitarian ideas, is forced in the nature of the case to devise this and that scheme to mitigate poverty. While allowing the basic causes of economic injustice to remain, the House of necessity passes one Bill after another to alleviate poverty, and this crop of Bills creates an army of bureaucrats to go round the country to administer them. For instance, instead of removing the causes of unemployment we had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who brought in the Unemployment Insurance Act with employment exchanges—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): We cannot go very far with these questions of employment and the distribution of wealth. We are debating a purely technical question of House of Commons procedure.
  Mr. MaeLaren: I beg your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to point out the cause of this Motion. You will see why I am doing it before I resume my seat. It goes to the root of this enormous growth of bureaucrats, officialdom and delegated authority. We have just heard a speech from the hon. and learned Member for
  282
  Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). Was it not significant that the illustrations he gave of the necessity for delegated authority were along the lines of protecting the slave against his own enslavement, protecting him against machinery and from being forced to live in a slum? All this delegated legislation arises from the sheer necessity for defending poverty and slavery against further oppression. Many people in this country, and many hon. Members, are very jealous that nothing shall be done to remove the power of the Executive to use delegated authority. I would beg them to pause, and rather to attack the root causes that necessitate this delegated authority and the growth of officialdom. Let them not continue in the belief that delegated authority and the growth of officialdom will lead them anywhere but to a state of serfdom.
  That is why I ask the House to forgive me if I go back a little in order to get to the root causes that I have mentioned. On one side of this House, are those who defend entrenched vested interests. On the other, are those who want the existing state of affairs to be mitigated by all sorts of Acts of Parliament, which necessitate an army of officials. The Motion now before us will not, in the slightest degree, help, because, as things are going, there will be an interminable growth of bureaucracy and officialdom. Some suspicion has been expressed to-day that the Motion has no other object than to impede the progress of other Acts of Parliament relative to peace conditions. I assure those who have that suspicion that they can disabuse their minds of it, because the Executive are in such a state of mental confusion as to what will be the condition of the new world., that there need be no fear that the Motion will hinder the progress of legislation. In view of the line that the Home Secretary has taken, the reflections that one wanted to make are somewhat changed. I am glad that he has made the concession of setting up a Committee. I know that it will act with the good sense and impartiality that will make it function to the honour and credit of the House of Commons.
  Before resuming my seat I want to beg hon. Members to look at the facts and not to evade them by political devices. Until this House balances society upon a just basis and we remove the causes of poverty, then, in the nature of things, as

  283
  the poor have votes and tend to threaten their Members in this House, their votes and power in this House will create an ever-increasing bureaucracy and officialdom. That will tend to drive this country, which has a Liberal conception of liberty, back towards the road of the servile State. I beg the House, whatever its good intentions may be, to keep before it the larger objective of removing the causes which necessitate the growth of delegated legislation, with its necessary officialism.
  It. is not more law we want, but less; not more passing of Acts of Parliament, but less. The Home Secretary said just now that there will inevitably be an increase in legislation; of course there will be, if we allow social sores to remain and to necessitate such legislation. Man's liberty will only be fully attained when legislation is at a minimum and man's rights are fully recognised. Only thus will you achieve a true balance in society.
  Sir Herbert Holdsworth: I can claim that, during the past 13 years, I have spoken in almost every Debate of this kind. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) has gone out, because his speech took me back to the days of 1931-35, when we discussed the threat, so ably propounded at that time by the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) of government by Order in Council. Why should the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen have a suspicion that those on this side of the House are not concerned about the social welfare of the people but are interested in those matters only in order to delay action being taken? There is not a single word of truth in it.
  Some of us on this side of the House, and some Members on the other side, believe that there are more important things than social legislation. We believe that freedom of speech, etc., is a far higher ideal than social reform. Give a man the best social conditions, and at the same time deprive him of his own personality, and what have you left to him? Is he richer? Not a bit of it. That is why we are concerned about delegated legislation. I do not think anybody in this House thinks that it is possible to carry
  284
  on legislation in this country without delegating it. What we demand is that we shall have effective power to examine that legislation. As things are, it is physically impossible for any Member of this House to read one per cent., I should say, of all the Orders that are laid on the Table of the House. When we are able to challenge these Orders it is always at the end of Business and the whole thing is most unsatisfactory.
  I challenge the views of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen. He links himself with those who would set Parliament on one side and rule by Order in Council, in other words, finally reduce this country to the condition of a totalitarian State. That is what we are concerned about. I have spent all my political life trying to make social conditions better, but I am not willing to exchange my birthright for a mess of pottage. It there is a fundamental right, I believe it is the right of personal liberty, I have appealed, times without number, to the Secretary of State on this matter. I heard him make his speech in Bradford recently, but I was not here, unfortunately, when the matter was raised during the following week. I would like him to explain a good deal more of that speech in detail. I am certain that the speech was misrepresented and that things were put into the speech which I never heard him say.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to elaborate and discuss the right hon. Gentleman's Bradford speech in detail.
  Sir H. Holdsworth: I obey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I want sincerely to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done to-day. I have always been worried because we could never alter these Regulations or amend them. This House has been presented with Regulations with the importance of which we could all agree, yet there has been within those Regulations certain things to which we had very strong objection. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would not be possible to consider the possibility of allowing amendments to Regulations? The other point I want to put is this: I could understand the urgency of many questions in 1940. I do not think there is quite the same urgency to-day Would it not be possible, instead of bringing a Regulation into force as soon as it is

  285
  signed by the Minister, to prevent it coming into force until it is confirmed by this House? Those are the two points I want to make. I congratulate the Home Secretary on taking a step forward, and I trust that he will not be misled as to the real sentiments of this House by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen.
  Mr. Denman: I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend from a rather different angle. The previous speaker wished the Home Secretary to go further than he has gone. I congratulate the Home Secretary on having so successfully limited the mischief which the original Motion would have involved. I should like to see it limited further still. The prime point we ought never to forget in this House is that we are in war conditions, and that we are acting under decisions taken in the early stages of the war, and even before the war, in 1939 and 1940, when we gave the Executive all the legislative power they wanted. I think it was our determination that the Executive should exercise that power, subject always to our direction if it was wrongly exercised, or if injury were done to His Majesty's subjects thereby. We are now in some of the most critical days of the war, and we are, apparently, urging the Executive to weaken their powers, to hand back to the House some of the authority which it voluntarily surrendered, and the effect of that act both upon the country and our friends and enemies overseas cannot, I think, be wholesome. If ever there was a time when we ought to maintain quite resolutely the full powers of the Executive to carry on this war, to act first and debate after, then this surely is the time.
  As I say, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having limited the mischief which the original Motion might have done. He has limited it in many ways. The subject matter is limited. The terms of reference we shall, of course, have to examine on paper when we see them, but they seem to me most cautiously framed, and I think no one need have any undue fear that the Executive will be trammelled in the course of the war through the terms of reference that are offered. One very interesting question which the Home Secretary raised, upon which I might be allowed to say a few words, is the participation of the other House, in this Com-
  286
  mittee. Of course, we have had very long experience of the collaboration of Lords and Commons on a Committee dealing with delegated legislation—that is, on the Ecclesiastical Committee. We have had 15 Members from each House, working together year after year, examining Measures brought before them, and reporting to their respective Houses. I think there is one very particuar advantage which anybody who has had some experience of that Committee will have noted, and that is the prolonged experience of the House of Lords' Members. We here exist, of course, from Parliament to Parliament. We retain a certain number of experienced Members, but there is a larger number of experienced Members in the other House. They bring very valuable expert knowledge into our deliberations. More especially do I observe the value of representatives of the Lords in examining this kind of delegated legislation. The value of people of legal experience and high legal office would be difficult to exaggerate, especially if the terms of reference are made rather strict, as indicated by the Home Secretary.
  Though I object most strongly to this kind of supervision of the Executive in time of war, before they have made a mistake, I do not even like it in time of peace, because I think that on these lines we are definitely following The wrong road. Delegated legislation, we all agree, is not to be avoided. We must have it, but why delegate it to the Front Bench? In the years 1931–32 a Select Committee of this House examined the question of procedure. Incidentally, they received evidence on two important schemes of devolution. One was from the present Prime Minister, and the other was the evidence of the actual working of the Enabling Act. We did not report on them for the simple reason that they were outside the scope of our inquiry, but the evidence is there, and it is really most interesting. If I might read one paragraph that was proposed for inclusion in the Report, but rejected as being beyond the scope of the Committee, it is this:
  "Occasional references were made to the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, as providing a precedent for relieving Parliament of detailed consideration of some specialised field of legislation. The evidence received relating to the Ecclesiastical Committee made it clear that under this Act a substantial block of work had been withdrawn from Parliament"—

  287
  exactly the kind of delegation you want—
  "without loss of ultimate Parliamentary control, and had been satisfactorily dealt with in a number of Measures that could not otherwise have been passed into law."
  We have had now nearly 25 years of experience of legislation being delegated, not by handing it to the Executive but by transferring it to a democratic assembly. No one has ever suggested that that precise experiment can be imitated in other fields of policy, but I think, equally, no one has ever supposed that it does not give a very sound precedent on which further extension of democratically delegated legislation should not be possible. These are the alternatives before us. Delegate legislation to our Executive, and it will grow there more and more, strengthen the arm of the Executive and give them, not only administrative but legislative and judicial powers as well, and make the Executive unduly powerful and over-balanced. Alternatively, we can develop that other scheme of delegating to democratically appointed legislative bodies that are subordinate to Parliament. Give Parliament some satellites, delegate work to those; and you maintain the democratic spirit. Otherwise, you will very easily slide pretty rapidly, into a confirmed system of bureaucracy from which you will be saved not one little bit by all these devices of examining committees.
  Mr. Keeling: The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has made a very interesting proposal, but he has so widened the field of the Debate that I do not think that, at this hour, with so small a number of Members present, the House would wish me to pursue that subject. I particularly welcome the announcement of the Home Secretary that the Select Committee is to have the services of Sir Cecil Carr, the learned counsel of Mr. Speaker. Many of us have found Sir Cecil Carr most helpful, not only on this subject but on many others. On this matter, we have the advantage of two books by him, both of which are in the Library catalogue but neither of which is in the Library. In those books, which hon. Members will find amusing as well as interesting, Sir Cecil Can- recalls that nearly 100 years ago Queen Victoria asked Lord Palmerston the meaning of the word "bureaucracy,"
  288
  which was a new word to her. He was able to assure her that bureaucracy was exclusively a Continental phenomenon. Those days have gone.
  There are two or three dangers of bureaucratic drafting which this Select Committee should watch. The first is legislation by reference, which is not less objectionable in Statutory Rules and Orders than it is in Bills. By legislation by reference, I mean, of course, legistating by altering an existing Act or Order, the Section of which you specify but do not explain or quote. Sir Cecil Carr quotes a Statutory Rule which reads:
  "The provisions of the regulations of 1914 and of the corresponding regulations of 1916 shall, so far as is inconsistent with these regulations, cease to have effect."
  Such a Rule asks a citizen to attempt feats of interpretation which are really quite beyond him. There was also a Statutory Rule which read:
  "The Minister by virtue of Section—…and all other powers him enabling.…"
  Such a phrase is far too vague and indefinite, and should not ever be employed in delegated legislation. Lastly, the Donoughmore Committee itself draws attention to the Departmental practice of appending to a Regulation or Rule a note explaining it, and it suggests that this practice should be more general. A Committee with which I have the honour to be associated, which is presided over by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), and which calls itself the A.B.Bs., or Active Back Benchers' Committee, has endeavoured to make several Ministers sit up on this question, and I hope that the Select Committee will now take over our burden.
  Dr. Peters: I rise only to congratulate the Minister on the steps that he has taken, and to ask one question. Being one of those unfortunate "limbs of the law," I dealt with this matter in a report of 1938. I worked through the various restrictions and licences of marketing boards, paying particular attention to the Milk Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board, and I came across one or two very glaring instances. There existed then, and I presume there exists to-day, authority for the Milk Marketing Board to sit in London with two or three men, and in one case which came to my notice, in which I was

  289
  professionally engaged, not even the Government representative was there when they took away the whole business of a man, simply saying, "Your licence is not going to be granted," and giving no reason whatever. That case is quoted in the report. I want to ask whether, in these cases, where, obviously, there has been some slipping through of something which would never have been passed by this House, there is any chance of those powers being either nullified, or at least amended. In the case to which I have referred, I had to force the matter to the High Court, and then there was arbitration. But for that, the whole business of that man, with thousands of pounds' worth of new machinery, would have been confiscated, without any reason being given and without a penny of compensation. Had this House been aware of that power, it would never have agreed to it. In a number of cases relating to licensing powers, there is very great danger to the liberty of the subject and his property. I think it will be wise for any Committee which has to consider these things to go back a little, and deal not merely with war-time Regulations, but with some of the Regulations which we passed in connection with the marketing boards.
  Mr. Petheriek: The speech which I am about to inflict on a somewhat empty House is very different, both in matter and in length, from the one I might have made if we had not been so very well—I might say, generously—met by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. One or two points were raised in the course of the Debate, to which I want to refer. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is no longer in his seat. Not for the first time he has laid his rhetorical egg and left the House. In the Amendment which he and some of his hon. Friends put on the Paper, he made a perfectly specific point, which he repeated in the Debate, that delegated legislation examined by this Committee upstairs should deal only with certain specific subjects: freedom from arrest, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly—in fact, those questions which affect the individual—but he and his hon. Friends expressly excluded matters dealing with property. Ever since the time of the Bill of Rights, and, indeed, long before, the holding of pro-
  290
  perty, large or small, has never been considered a discreditable thing in this country, and, therefore, it seems to me that, unless you take the completely Communist view that all goods must be held in common, the holding of property is one of the freedoms which we enjoy in this country. It is right that this Committee should include in its labours every form of delegated legislation, whether it deals with the freedom of the individual in his own personal life, or the freedom of the individual so far as property is concerned.
  There is one other point I should like to make in reference to the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). The hon. Member suggested that the only reason why some of us here took up the view that we must be very careful to examine all the delegated leislation presented to the House was because we wanted to stop as much legislation as possible, and particularly delegated legislation. I certainly think that we should not look upon all these questions of delegated legislation in the mass. We have all looked upon them, no matter whether presented to the House by Bill or whether by, this system of delegated legistation, on their merits and per se, and the hon. and learned Member made the point that delegated legislation in the mass was a good thing. He pointed to three, which he thought were good Regulations, and drew from them the inescapable conclusion that all delegated legislation was necessarily good. I do not for one moment agree with that view.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, in the course of his speech, suggested that Members of the Conservative Party were only interested in delegated legislation when it affected the rights of property. The hon. Member said we never interfered unless the rights of property were concerned. Regulation 18s was mentioned, and it was at once pointed out that that was a matter in which many Members took a lively interest. I, myself, with other hon. Members, fought during the whole of last year a small measure of delegated legislation which gave the Government the right to stop anybody, even a part-time workman, when his work was over, going to sea in order to fish. Consequently, in discussing

  291
  Bills and delegated legislation, we have stood up for the rights of the individual, whether those rights are infringed in the form of taxes, on his liberty as a subject, his freedom from arrest without due trial, or a tax upon his property. I believe this is the sole function of Parliament, and long may it remain so.
  I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for having met us so well. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) said that the Home Secretary had, in fact, rather limited the proposals. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been rather generous and has given us, in fact, more than we wanted, and, so far as his Committee is concerned, at any rate, more than the minimum which some of us considered necessary. Since the Private Members Committee, of which I am a member, began to take an active interest in this problem, we have wrung some concessions out of the Government. Finally we got a very important concession, which was not wrung from them, but was given, I believe, quite freely as the result of representations made to them. There are at least eight matters which may have escaped the notice of the House and which we have been advocating for a long time, and which other hon. Members have also advocated and in which concessions have been granted by the Government during the last year.
  I think that the keynote of the Debate was really struck earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin), who pointed out the essential difference between the ordinary procedure by Bill and the procedure by delegated legislation. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the methods by which an instruction on delegated legislation, that is, Rule or Order, was produced, and he pointed out the very important difference that, in the House of Commons, when the procedure is by Bill, you have, in addition to the Government, some 500 other hon. Members, who may be experts on any given subject at any given time. You may have, for instance, a Bill dealing with humane slaughter of animals, and, during the Committee stage, somebody puts down an Amendment and an hon. Member gets up in a corner to say, "I am very sorry to intervene in this, but I do happen to know something about it. I am a butcher, and this simply will
  292
  not work." That is the sort of advantage we get by proceeding in the ordinary way through Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. At every moment, a Bill can be subjected to fierce Parliamentary criticism, and it is known to people all over the country who, if they think their liberty is threatened, write to their Member in Parliament, and, even if he has not been interested before, he is likely to be interested then. This does not happen in a Government Department, where there are no 500 people to say, while the instruction is being prepared, "This is nonsense; it will not work, and, even if it does, it will inflict damage on far more people than it will benefit."
  We very much welcome the concession which has been given to us by the Government to-day. I believe that the suggestion made with regard to the setting up and working of a Select Committee, as far as is reasonable, is a good thing, having regard to the necessity, which all of us envisage, for a considerable volume of this delegated legislation, particularly in war-time. I believe that this is not a victory for one group of Conservative Members of Parliament, but a victory for the whole House and for our general Parliamentary procedure. It is certainly a victory for the country. If it can be looked upon in any way as a personal success, I think that personal success is due, more than to anybody, to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), the force of whose convictions is only equalled by the strength and determination with which he puts the case here and in the country. My hon. Friend is one of those Members whose great merit as a Parliamentarian has not been recognised, and I only wish he was adorning the Front Bench. In view of the immense volume of legislation which is being put through Parliament under our eyes, it is, I think, wise that all hon. Members should take an interest in this matter. It concerns the whole country, as one can see from the Press, which almost daily, and certainly weekly, prints articles and letters on this immensely important subject.
  Once again may I say how very satisfied we are with the Home Secretary's declaration to-day? I think it is most important that this Committee should be regarded only as what in fact it is—a watch cornmittee. When it turns on the red light,

  293
  that is the signal for Parliament to be vigilant on any Rule or Order presented to it to see that it does not, in any way, delegate its responsibility. The responsibility will remain on the House to watch' all legislation, both in the form of Bills and of delegated legislation. I believe that all our future and the liberties of this country are bound up with the continued determination of Parliament to see that the delicate balance beween the Executive and the Legislature is rigorously maintained.
  Sir Robert Tasker: There are two questions that I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who, I understand, is to wind up the Debate. It has been suggested that Ministers can amend Rules. In my view, they cannot. I shall be glad if my right hon. and learned Friend can inform the House whether a Minister can or not. The other question is whether the Executive can hand back their authority. That is an amazing suggestion and indicative of the fact that one Member at least thinks that the Executive rule Parliament and that Parliament does not rule the Executive. These Rules and Regulations and Instructions, call them what you will, are, in effect, the law of the land. They are prepared by the Executive, interpreted by the Executive and enforced by the Executive. The vast majority of the people of this country, since they cannot afford to defend an action brought by the Executive, are in a position of defencelessness.
  I object to this encroachment upon civil liberty and I would remind the House that the beginning of the Nazi and Facist Parties was the transference of power from the governing body to the Executive. I hope that the House will bear that fact in mind. I am only giving way because my right hon. and learned Friend wants to wind up the Debate, but I hope that an occasion will arise when I may give the House the result of my own experience in regard to specific cases, particularly in connection with the Inland Revenue, which has not been referred to to-day. I have in my hand a document, eight pages of it, containing from ro to 20 thousand words and figures. The House knows nothing about it; these rules may be interpreted in any way that the Inland Revenue may choose The victims can do nothing. I do not expect my right hon. and learned Friend to refer to the Inland
  294
  Revenue, because the target has been the Home Secretary—the most powerful man in the country. He is the only man who can release prisoners or who can make a Member of this House, or any civilian, a prisoner and keep him in prison without trial. This affects not only the Habeas Corpus Act, but Magna Charta. These rights have gone and it is the duty of this House to see that we recover these rights for the citizens of this country.
  Mr. Levy: I rise only to bring to the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend who is to reply one point. He realises that a number of these Regulations take the power of discretion away from the courts. Provided an inspector is satisfied that an infringement of an Order has been committed and wishes to bring a prosecution, whatever opinions the magistrate may hold with regard to it, he has no discretion whatever but is bound to convict. There have been many cases all over the country where magistrates have said that they were impelled to convict although they themselves felt that no crime had really been committed. I bring that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who is very zealous that the powers of the court shall be unimpaired. If he cannot deal with it now I would like him to give consideration to it, in order that some amendment may be made and the courts may have restored to them the rights that have been taken away.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): My right hon. Friend has, I am sure the House will agree, every reason to be satisfied with the reception which his statement has received and the decisions which he announced. There have been one or two discordant notes, and I will say a few words about them. It is unlikely that on any occasion on which a matter of importance is being discussed there will be a universal chorus of approval from the 600 odd Members of this House, representing, as we do, many different points of view. Perhaps the most discordant speech, at all events since the statement of my right hon. Friend, was that made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). I completely disagree with the opinion that he expressed as to the result of this Committee. Leaving aside the question of motives at the moment, which has been sufficiently

  295
  answered by those against whom the attack was made, my hon. and learned Friend was satisfied that the setting up of this Committee would obstruct the delegated legislation, which he believes must play a considerable part in the complicated matters with which this House will have to deal after the war. I disagree with that. The existence of this Committee will, on the whole, make the House, whatever its complexion, more ready to accept a Clause under which there can be delegated legislation than is the case under the present, as I think it, unsatisfactory position.
  The criticisms of the present position are really to the effect that, although it is the duty of the House to scrutinise all Orders which require affirmative Resolutions or against which a Prayer can be moved, it is also the duty of the House to-day to consider those Orders, and, if something is wrong, to ventilate the position. As it is, the ordinary Private Member of this House, with the heavy commitments which the House itself makes upon him, and with possibly other duties and obligations outside his actual duties and obligations in this House and in his constituency, cannot possibly look through all these various Orders to decide which ought to receive special attention or which might be objectionable. In so far as that is the criticism—and I think everybody agrees that it is the criticism—that criticism will grow as the legislation which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind is brought before the House, and in every case where there was a power of delegation, that criticism would be voiced with increasing strength as the process went on.
  The existence of this Committee will provide an answer. I do not mean to say it will give an unlimited charter to delegated legislation—nobody wants that —but it will provide an answer. Once this Committee has been set up with a secretary and clerk, with a highly skilled adviser—Sir Cecil Carr, to whom reference has been made—it will be able to look at these things and, if we go beyond the limits, whatever they may be, the Committee can report to the House. So I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend. So far as he is anxious about legislation with the power to delegate, I think the existence of this Committee
  296
  will facilitate its passage rather than obstruct it. He also said that examination by this House was only an excuse for obstruction. Surely that cannot be right. After all, what does the House exist for? It exists to examine proposals, whether made to it by the Government or by Private Members in ordinary times by Private Bills. It exists to examine administration and to examine delegated legislation. Where there is an affirmative Resolution, it is the business of the House to examine it. I think on reflection, my hon. and learned Friend will agree that he went too far.
  He gave some examples of what probably everybody would agree to be beneficent delegated legislation, but I drew rather a different moral from that which he drew. I am not at the moment sure whether the examples he gave would be subject to a Prayer or not, but if so, they would be outside the present proposal. However, I will take them as an example of cases in which delegated legislation deals with very important matters—Trade Boards, Factories Acts, workmen's compensation, building regulations. Let us assume that these are matters which come before the Committee. I quite agree that they can do very important and valuable things and, indeed, if one contemplated none of these things we should be very much less civilised than we are. But the fact that delegated legislation can deal with things of such importance to the health and safety of the people, well or inadequately, is surely not an argument against having a Committee to examine these Orders when they are issued.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has gone, but perhaps I need not say more about him than this. We all know he thinks that if we would only adopt a particular Measure—to which it would be out of Order to refer—vested interests would disappear, wealth would be equally distributed, we should need hardly any Acts of Parliament, only a few officials, and no delegated legislation. I cannot explore that further, but I thank him for the support he gave, I think, on the whole, to the Home Secretary's proposal. He won our universal approval when he said—I have the sense if not the exact words—that whatever weakens the House, weakens the foundation of our Constitution and our liberties.

  297
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Sir H. Holdsworth) welcomed the Motion and made one or two proposals. I doubt if his proposals are good ones, but I will give them serious consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), who happily is still with us, made an interesting analogy of the Church Assembly. With respect to him, I do not feel that sort of scheme would really apply in the ordinary case, and he admitted it would not be exactly applicable. In the ordinary case the delegated legislation is necessary in order to make it work, to adapt a large statutory scheme for which the Minister must remain responsible to this House. Therefore, I think the responsibility for the delegated legislation must remain with the Minister, otherwise you would say, "Why is it not working?" and he would say, "I am sorry but this body which ought to have made the proper Regulations under Clause 29 will not do anything at all," or, "They are thoroughly bad."
  Mr. Denman: The evidence we received before that Committee in 1931 showed that the Enabling Act procedure rendered so much delegated legislation unnecessary in the sense in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is using the term. The Assembly was able, by having ample time and proper Committee procedure, to make it so much more complete that we had not to deal with it in the same way. That is what I meant by democratic legislation as opposed to bureaucratic.
  The Attorney-General: No doubt we shall have opportunities on later occasions of exploring the possibilities, but at the moment I feel that what, on the whole, we are dealing with are statutory schemes for the general running and administration of which the Minister must be responsible. That being so, the power of covering the ground where delegated legislation can be applied must, I think, on the whole, be left with him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) tried to make our flesh creep with a reference to an Inland Revenue document. I cannot defend it or reply to it because I have no idea what the document is. I am bound to say, however, that on the whole the Inland Revenue inspectors and officers have a reputation for general helpfulness in the administration of the very complicated
  298
  code which they have to administer. He also asked me whether a Minister can amend Rules. Well, if he can make them he can amend them. One of the objects of having Rules is that they can be amended if circumstances show that they were wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) referred to discretion being taken away from the courts, on conviction. I am not quite sure whether he is quite right, but what I think he is thinking of is the kind of case where a Minister has, say, given a direction to a farmer, the reasonableness of which could not be examined. Once you disobey a direction it may be that the magistrate has no option but to convict. It is not that the magistrate has no discretion in considering a criminal offence, but that the criminal offence which arises from the Order or Regulation cannot be questioned.
  I agree with Members who have said that we must draw the line between war and peace. It is obvious that in war time the Government must be given certain powers, that we have to submit to restrictions and that the Government can act rapidly in a way which we would not tolerate in peace-time. I agree that in many, cases not only the scope but the manner of control may well be found to be unnecessary in peace-time. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) referred to comments and criticisms made in Sir Cecil Carr's book, and no doubt we can live and learn in the matter of drafting. Speaking on behalf of draftsmen, with whom I have had a great deal to do, I would like to tell the House that theirs is an extremely difficult task, and that draftsmen always welcome assistance or suggestions which may lead to their work becoming clearer, provided it is equally watertight legally. Sensible discussion by people who realise the difficulties of drafting helps everybody, and nobody welcomes it more than I do. With regard to the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters) I very much doubt whether it is practicable for this Committee to go into the past. Of course, if Regulations or Orders are unnecessary, Members can always take up the matter with the Minister and ask him to revise his legislation or not to use his powers in a certain way.
  With regard to to-day's Debate, sometimes in our discussions we are apt to use expressions which suggest putting Mem-

  299
  bers of the House on one side and members of the Government on another. We know what we mean, but, of course, it is one of the most fundamental features of our Constitution that the Government are controlled by, and are responsible to, the House of Commons. Not only is that so, but the larger number of their Members are Members of the House of Commons. Therefore, one can overdo, as it were, the suggestion that there is a body of rather sinister men consisting of the Government on one side and a body of enlightened elected representatives of the House on the other. It is, of course, quite right that there should be criticism and scrutiny of the Government's acts by Members of the House, but we are to a great extent members of one body, and it is right and proper that in this question of procedure, how the House should do its work and what the relationship should be between the House and the Government, that we should both work together and that both should feel that the other is behaving reasonably. I think that in that light to-day has been a happy day. The House has felt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met this Motion'in a way which has commended itself to Members, and I hope that in the working out of this important and interesting innovation we shall preserve this happy relationship.
  Mr. Molson: The Home Secretary, in his speech, has gone more than half-way to meet us and I should like to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, that we very much appreciate the attitude which the Government have adopted. In expressing our deep gratitude to them I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS

    GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)
    Resolved:
    "That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Caernarvon, which was presented on 25th April and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Sir Oliver Simmonds: A subject which has recently engaged both this House and Noble Lords in another place is that of air transport, and of the many questions which have arisen in that connection perhaps one of the most important is that of the monopoly chosen instrument which has been adopted over the past few years as a United Kingdom operating instrument in the sphere of air transport. Hon. Members will agree with me when I say that we have been both disappointed and dismayed at the lack of policy which has been manifest throughout the statements made by responsible Ministers. I submit that it is time we pressed the Government for more specific assurances and more specific information on this matter. As regards the chosen instrument, the House will remember that we passed the British Overseas Airways Corporation Act just before the war, and that we made specific provision for this House to be informed of the state of the finances of the Corporation. I think that was necessary in order that the House might annually, or from time to time, review the health of the Corporation, and that it was fair to the taxpayer who is the unfortunate person who, whether he likes it or not, has to find the money to make up the loss on operations of the Corporation. Further, it is only elementary justice to the Corporation itself that its achievements, which may very likely be meritorious, should be appreciated by this House and the country. Therefore, as in all other matters which are not intimately bound up with war secrets, I say, "Tell the House of Commons the truth." Up to date that has not been done.
  I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on 5th April last the following Question:
  "Whether he receives, at regular intervals, information from the British Overseas Airways Corporation regarding their detailed operational costs?"
  To the surprise of many hon. Members my right hon. Friend replied:
  "Yes, Sir, but the degree of detail usual in peace-time costings is not, of course, practicable in present conditions."

  301
  Well, that is not an argument used by the Supply Departments when they invite war contractors to indicate to them how their costings are arrived at. In these matters we have learned that what is sauce for the goose is not, in the Governments view, always sauce for the gander. I pressed my right hon. Friend, following that reply, as to whether he would look into the matter, and as his reply was rather important I will read what he said:
  "My hon. Friend will remember that when this Bill was passed through Parliament it was recognised that there was certain information which it was proper that the Corporation should be called upon to render to me, but which could not be made public. The Act says:
  'The corporation shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, make to the Secretary of State a report … containing such information with respect to the proceedings and policy of the corporation as can be made public without detriment to the interests of the undertaking of the corporation'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1944; Vol. 398, C. 1981.]
  I emphasise those words, "without detriment to the interests of the undertaking of the Corporation." I can conceive of quite an amount of information which would be highly detrimental to the interests of the undertaking of the Corporation, if it ran its business in a certain way, should it find its way into the hands of Members of this House. The interpretation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State places upon those words is highly material to the point we are discussing. It could, of course, be claimed that, as the directors of an ordinary limited liability company do not give every financial secret to their shareholders at the annual general meeting, therefore the House of Commons should not ask for too much information from the Corporation. In the case of an ordinary limited liability company the directors have to protect the interests of the shareholders inter alia from competitors who are manifestly seeking to under-cut the company and take away the profits from the shareholders in succeeding years. But a monopoly corporation backed financially by the State, and relying on the over taxed taxpayer finding the deficit, is certainly in no position to advance the argument that it should be allowed to withhold relevant information from the House of Commons as regards its operational costs. Thus I was very
  302
  interested to have a look at the information which the Secretary of State for Air has laid on the Table for the past three years with regard to the financial operations of the Corporation. I will deal only with the last year.
  It is a rather scrappy document. It reveals that the expenditure of the Corporation was £8,250,000 exclusive of obsolescence. No estimate of obsolescence appears anywhere in the document, yet obsolescence is a vital and important charge against the revenue of the company. There is a note which says that, after receiving revenue credited to the Air Ministry amounting to £2,000,000 odd, the net revenue comes down to £6,000,000. There is a further note which says that revenue arising from the carriage of mails accrues to the Air Ministry, and there is credit for certain other traffic revenue the charge for which has been waived in accordance with Air Ministry directions. It amounts approximately to £3,750,000. Therefore there will apparently be £2,250,000 loss, plus obsolescence. But there is another note which says that certain aircraft spares, premises, equipment, petrol—no mean item in the operation of an air line—and stores have been provided free of charge from Government sources, and therefore no charge appears in the above account in respect thereof, or in respect of certain services and facilities similarly provided, whatever that may mean. That is the degree of detail to which the Secretary of State feels that the House is entitled under the British Overseas Airways Corporation Act. What, in pounds, shillings and pence, can this all mean? It certainly means a loss of £2,250,000. It certainly means £1,000,000, or maybe £2,000,000, more for obsolescence. It certainly means millions for all the other items which the report states have not been included. I fail to know whether, in fact, the taxpayer in the financial year ending 1943 had to find 5, 10, 15 or 20 million pounds to make up the loss of B.O.A.C. operations.
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Sir O. Simmonds: If I turn elsewhere to a country which publishes all its

  303
  figures, and which, curiously enough, is run on a highly competitive basis of private enterprise, the United States of America, I find that in the same period, not only did the American air lines not dip into the pockets of the American taxpayer to the tune of many millions of dollars, but the surcharge on mail rendered a profit of no less than 33,000,000 dollars in the year as a relief to the American taxpayer. Here we have the difference between a statutory monopoly which would long ago have sunk under the load of its own debt were it not for the unhappy taxpayer, and an enlightened, vigorous, active, successful private enterprise undertaking relieving the taxpayer to the tune of some £8,000,000. I think I have said enough to show that this is a wretched story. I think that it is time the Government, without sheltering themselves behind what Goebbels will think or say, or what the B.O.A.C. Act says they may suppress in the interests of the Corporation, should be frank with the House and say exactly what this Corporation is costing.
  I think I should also ask my right hon. and gallant Friend this cognate question: What are the Government really asking private enterprise to propose as regards its ability or willingness to operate air transport services? We have had so many contradictory statements from representatives of the Government. Indeed, in the Debate on the Report stage I took up the Lord Privy Seal's previous speech, in which he had said: "Why do not the shipping companies come in?" I analysed that, and said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air: "Does he not agree with me that they do not come in, although the B.O.A.C. may only legalistically have the monopoly, because the Foreign Office would not negotiate with other Foreign Offices to obtain permission to fly for other British companies in the light of the B.O.A.C. Act?"
  Mr. Wakefield: Is there not the further point that monopoly exists for the Corporation in personnel and aircraft?
  Sir O. Simmonds: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. That also is true. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was very frank with the House, and said: "Yes, the hon. Member for Duddeston and I are quite correct.
  304
  No Foreign Office would endeavour to obtain facilities for any other instrument than the chosen instrument." So we were left dangling again in mid-air, wondering what the future of British air transport might be. We had a similar process in another place last week, and we are still left wondering.
  I say to my right hon. and gallant Friend that it is really time the Government stopped fooling private interests in this matter. If they want to have a perpetuation of the State monopoly, let them say so and let them take the attack that will come after that announcement has been made and justify their policy. Do not start running away, saying: "Why don't they bring their propositions? We have not received their propositions." Let us have an assurance that the Department honestly desire to receive from intelligent organisations proposals for air-line operation, that they will consider them with an open mind, and will attempt to negotiate with them in order that some arrangement may be made whereby British airline operation after the war shall no longer be the monopoly of this Corporation—though not necessarily with the complete elimination of the Corporation, which could continue to fly on a certain sector. I should like to see that. We should have the Corporation flying on one route and private enterprise flying on the other. I do not fear that comparison. I trust that hon. Members opposite who may be rather interested in the principle of the Corporation will see the advantage of testing out whether that is, in fact, the best system, or whether another system could be found. I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell the House whether he wants these proposals from shipping and railway companies or any other ad hoc group, adequately backed financially, or whether he is merely paying lip-service to the principle of having some other air line than the Corporation.
  Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: All those who are interested in air matters are indebted to the hon. Member for bringing forward the question of air transport. Many Debates have taken place in the other place, where a noble Lord who was a very efficient Air Minister is always raising the question of civil aviation. He gets answers from the Government spokesman, the Lord Privy Seal, who is a very astute politician

  305
  and who speaks many columns of HANSARD but gives very little information indeed. It is high time that the Government gave us a little more information about their civil aviation policy. I asked the Secretary of State for Air the other day how much money British Overseas Airways Corporation received. The answer was that under one Vote they got a certain amount of money. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State the total amount of money that the Corporation receives and whether he can give an assurance that they give a sufficient return for that money. It is only right that the taxpayer should know. With regard to the legal position of shipping companies developing airlines in conjunction with their shipping movements, I would like to ask whether a shipping company is allowed to create its own air service for working in the South Atlantic, say, with its ships. I would like to know the legal position in that matter, and also the position with regard to the railway companies.
  I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State about flying boats. Is the Corporation going to develop flying boats as it did the air-mail service before the war or to trust to large-dimension aeroplanes? We should like a lead in that matter. There is also the question of aerodromes that are to be retained or to be developed after the war. For instance, is Malta to be developed as a great civil aviation centre? I should like to see it developed with Egypt. I should like a little more information as to whether any committee or body is going into this question of aerodromes to be retained or developed. For instance, is Portsmouth to be developed as a great air centre? Also, with regard to the air port of London, what is being done in that connection? We are being deluged with all sorts of schemes for developing civil aviation, and it is high time, I submit to the Under-Secretary, that we should be told exactly what the Government are going to do. Surely by now they have had sufficient time to give us some guidance in the matter. People who return to this country from America tell me that everybody over there is civil air minded. They have tremendous schemes that they are going to develop, not only for internal air services but international air services. I think it is high time that the Government gave us a little more information about how they are
  306
  going to develop civil aviation after the war.
  Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I rise for one moment to emphasise the last part of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds). I do appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary. No one in the House will deny that there is in this House or the country any stauncher supporter of private enterprise than he. I appeal to him to try and get his Government to decide something about the future of civil aviation. Everybody is asking, hon. Members all over the House are being asked, When are the Government going to make up their mind? I merely rise to ask him to try to get this matter settled quickly.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter), and my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds) all said that it was high time the Government made a declaration on major issues concerning future post-war civil aviation. That is a matter of opinion, and. I am not offering any views upon it on this occasion. What I would submit is that this is not the time for such a declaration, when I am rising to speak on the Motion for the Adjournment, notice of which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston on 5th April, and to which of course I have paid due attention between then and now, and upon which I hope to give the House some measure of satisfaction and some information. I was certainly not warned that these large major issues were to be raised, and that I was to be called upon to make a Government declaration. I think the House knows sufficient about Government procedure and Government working to be aware that no Under-Secretary of State would dare to be so bold as to do that without prior reference to those who are in superior authority to himself.
  I would like to come to the particular issue raised by the hon. Member for Duddeston. The first thing I want to get clear in my mind, and I hope I have interpreted his wishes aright, is, What does he want? I gather he wants greater detail of the operational costs of British

  307
  Overseas Airways Corporation to be laid in front of this House. I think we must, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in a Debate which finished a short time ago in this House, differentiate between peace time and war time. What is to happen in peace time is for Parliament to say in the future. I do not think that in the realm of civil aviation, any more than in any other direction in life, we shall start exactly at the end of the war where we left off in 1939. But in the field of aviation, as in other fields, Parliament will have its say as to what it wishes the Government of the day to execute in the way of policy. Therefore, as regards post-war I will not say anything, but I would like to concentrate on the war-time position.
  I hope to convince my hon. Friend and other Members that there are some very genuine and solid reasons for the present practice, particularly during the time when the Corporation is run for the sole benefit of the war effort. I regret that, although my hon. Friend said that I was not to pay too much attention to the Act of 1939, I must mention it. Under that Act, the arrangements are that, for normal times, the Secretary of State for Air can, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to the Corporation, not exceeding £4,000,000 in any one financial year. That power exists up to 31st March, 1953. The Corporation, for their part, have to submit, at the beginning of each three-year period, a programme and an estimate of costs and receipts; and, after examining these, the Secretary of State has to determine what grants, if any, should be paid to the Corporation during that three-year period. There is provision for later supplementary estimates being submitted to, the Secretary of State by the Corporation, and for the grants being amended accordingly. This system has never worked, because the war came just when the Corporation was formed, and immediately after the war began the Corporation came under Section 32 of the Act, which requires that the whole of the undertaking should be placed at the disposal of the Secretary of State during a period of emergency.
  Under this war-time provision, the Secretary of State controls both the programme and the policy of the Corporation; and he undertakes to pay the Corporation a deficiency grant, covering the
  308
  difference between the expenditure and the revenue of the Corporation each year. It is necessary that in war-time the Secretary of State should exercise more control over the expenditure of the Corporation than in peace-time. In order that he should do this, it has been arranged, firstly, that the Corporation shall submit an estimate at the beginning of each financial year, to be approved by the Secretary of State, and, secondly, that any proposal to incur capital expenditure on aerodromes, of any amount or elsewhere of an amount exceeding £5,000, must receive the prior approval of the Secretary of State, and that at the end of each financial year the report and accounts must be submitted in detail to the Secretary of State. These accounts are examined by officials in my Department, who can, and do, obtain information on any matters on which they require it. Also, there is provision for a brief summary of the report and accounts to be submitted to Parliament, in so far as security considerations allow. My hon. Friend said, "Pay no attention to Goebbels," but I hope that he will listen with that patience and pleasure with which I listened to him, while I try to deal with that security consideration.
  The critics of the Corporation say that they would like to have these detailed costs, but there are three reasons which prevent my right hon. Friend from following that course. The first is security. At the present time the British Overseas Airways Corporation are engaged on exactly the same work as the Royal Air Force Transport Command. Here, I would like to interpose a reply to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford, as to whether we are getting good value for the expenditure on the work being carired out by the Corporation. I can assure him that the British Overseas Airways Corporation, their personnel and their management, are making a very fine contribution, of which I think he is aware, in many directions, to essential war transport needs, over a much larger part of the globe than, I think, many Members of this House realise.
  Sir O Simmonds: Might we be clear on this point? I gather now that the Minister said we cannot have this information for security reasons, but the Secretary of

  309
  State, on 5th April, said we could not have it because he did not receive the information himself from the Corporation.
  Captain Balfour: Time is limited, but if my hon. Friend will wait, I am coming to that very point. There are three reasons. The first and main reason is security. No hon. Members in war-time would contemplate asking for Transport Command's operational costs even on routes outside, but running into, operational areas, and even to the limited extent contained in the accounts of the Corporation submitted to Parliament. No analysis of British Overseas Airways Corporation's cost accounts of routes which would be in sufficient detail to serve any useful purpose could escape objection on security grounds, for disclosure of valuable information to the enemy as to our war transport, its extent and direction. Therefore, I come to the point raised by the Secretary of State in reply to a Question in the House. The man-power shortage operates throughout the whole of industry, and it has forced many industrial enterprises to reduce their preparation of detailed costs schedules, and British Overseas Airways Corporation have shared this shortage to the full. It is quite unable to contemplate the same sort of detailed costing, even within its own far-flung organisation, as is naturally expected in peace-time. Even within its own organisation, apart from submission to Parliament, it cannot, for its own purposes, owing to the man-power shortage, collect all these costs from all over the world.
  Thirdly, and finally, there is this consideration, which, with the technical knowledge which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members possess, will be appreciated by the House. In war-time the Corporation are directed to operate types of transport aircraft, which they would not select themselves had they a free choice, but types which are available at the present time. Many of them are converted military aircraft, and others are certainly not suitable, in design, for transport use, but have to be used and used on routes where ground facilities are limited, which, very often, causes uneconomic operation. In peace-time, civil aircraft would have aerodromes best suited for the type of aircraft where they would be able to enjoy maximum efficiency. Any costs of the British Overseas Airways Corporation in war-time, even if they
  310
  could be extracted would, I submit to the House, be valueless for the purpose of deductions on efficiency of operation or cost per mile.
  I turn to the broader issue whether it would be right, supposing these objections did not exist, to lay before Parliament all those detailed costs for which my hon. Friend asks. I would like to expand this particular point, because I believe it to be of very much wider importance than the limited field in which we are debating it to-day. It concerns the whole technique of a public corporation after the war, and how much control Parliament is going to exercise, directly of indirectly, and the form of that control. It seems to me that there are two alternatives. This Corporation and, indeed, other bodies in future, can be managed solely by a Government Department. That is, if you like, Whitehall control in all matters, large and small of what, in fact, would be a direct State trading enterprise, with all the details placed in front of Parliament, and a management, as it were, directly answerable, through a particular Department, to Parliament.
  Alternatively, the management could devolve on a body of responsible persons appointed by the Secretary of State who have business experience—business executives who are trustworthy men of great integrity and paid at market rates—an organisation allowing a large measure of executive independence. It cannot work both ways. Management by experienced business executives does not mix with continuous control by a Government Department, and day to day interrogation by Parliament. So long as Parliament intends that the Corporation shall have financial management, it seems to me that the details of management must be left to the responsible board, but that the Minister must have the right to ask for the production of information necessary to ensure himself that the undertaking is being efficiently managed. If he is not so satisfied, be must have the power to remove the Board. If Parliament is not satisfied that the Minister in question is exercising his duties and responsibilities correctly, Parliament can remove the Minister, and the Government, if it so likes. That is the extent of responsibility. If the House wants detailed items of expenditure of the Corporation to be revealed or the executive salaries, these are not provided for.

  311
  Let us say that the House expects the detailed salaries of the executive management. The provision of Section I of British Overseas Airways Act says that the Secretary of State appoints the members of the Corporation and fixes the terms of remuneration of members. There is no difference in principle between supplying information about the remuneration of the Director-General, and supplying information about salaries paid to regional workers, pilots, messengers or a whole range of Corporation employees. If this and much other information is disclosed, it is open to debate, and, rightly, the Secretary of State would have to answer to the House on each item on which he might be questioned. Naturally, if he must answer to the House, he must have the power and responsibility of making the appointments. He would have to insist on being consulted by the Corporation before they fixed any salaries-or embarked upon any other minor expenditure. I submit that the whole conception of independent management would then have fallen to the ground.
  I ask the House to rest assured that under the Act, particularly Sections 22 and 23, which give the Secretary of State due powers to satisfy himself in regard to any scandals or undue extravagances, the Secretary of State has exercised his powers and rights under these sections and is satisfied that the Corporation is being efficiently and adequately used in the war effort.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: My right hon. and gallant Friend has failed to differentiate between two sorts of officials —the officials appointed by the Secretary of State and nominated by him, and the ordinary officials of the company appointed by the Board. There is a great difference between them.
  Captain Balfour: The Secretary of State has power to appoint the members and to determine their salaries as such. These are told to the House. The House has a right to know the salaries of members. They are laid in the particular account to which the hon. Member referred. It
  312
  shows that one member of the Corporation is being paid tmo a year. In due course, when the right hon. Gentleman lays the next year's accounts, any changes shown in the payment of members will be shown in those accounts. I submit that in war time, for three practical reasons I have given, we calmot expect to get detailed accounts, but far more important, and for practical reasons with regard to the policy of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, I ask the House to take a wide view of the problem. and not to press and prejudice the position in the future.
  Mr. Hopkinson: It is hardly necessary to suggest to those who have listened to the Debate that, in this instance, the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Member is totally and utterly unsatisfactory. His suggestion that for security reasons certain information could not be given is just ridiculous.
  Captain Balfour: We must be the judges of that.
  Mr. Hopkinson: On the point put in my interruption, my right hon. and gallant Friend failed to distinguish between those officials appointed by the Secretary of State himself and those officials appointed by the Board itself. If I might put the matter brutally, what the House really wants to know is, How many of the greyhound-racing racket are in this show and what are they getting out of it?
  Captain Balfour: I consider that a most insulting, uncalled-for remark, because the particular gentleman is unable to answer for himself in this House. He is rendering fine executive service and has rendered good service in the Royal Air Force. I have no concern with his commercial history, one way or another, but I admire what he is doing now, and I am sorry he should have a slur cast on him in this House.
  It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ROYAL NAVY
  Pay
  Pay
  Parliamentary Franchise (Register)
  Parliamentary Franchise (Register)
  Fleet Air Arm (Recruits)
  Fleet Air Arm (Recruits)
  Industrial Civil Servants
  Industrial Civil Servants
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Raw Materials (Research Work)
  Raw Materials (Research Work)
  Employment Exchanges
  Employment Exchanges
  TANGANYIKA (SISAL INDUSTRY)
  TANGANYIKA (SISAL INDUSTRY)
  NORTH UIST-BENBECULA (VIADUCT)
  NORTH UIST-BENBECULA (VIADUCT)
  SOCIAL INSURANCE AND LAND CONTROL (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  SOCIAL INSURANCE AND LAND CONTROL (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  U.S. BROADCASTING STATION, GREAT BRITAIN
  U.S. BROADCASTING STATION, GREAT BRITAIN
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES
  FORCES' PARCELS SERVICE (INDIA AND ITALY)
  FORCES' PARCELS SERVICE (INDIA AND ITALY)
  ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  NEWSAGENTS' SUPPLIES, GLASGOW
  NEWSAGENTS' SUPPLIES, GLASGOW
  ANGLO-ETHIOPIAN AGREEMENT (PAYMENTS)
  ANGLO-ETHIOPIAN AGREEMENT (PAYMENTS)
  SPAIN (AGREEMENT)
  SPAIN (AGREEMENT)
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (BURNHAM COMMITTEE, TEACHERS' PANEL)
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (BURNHAM COMMITTEE, TEACHERS' PANEL)
  BRITISH ARMY (A.T.S. UNIT, DYSENTERY)
  BRITISH ARMY (A.T.S. UNIT, DYSENTERY)
  WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS)
  WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS)
  EASTERN NATIONAL OMNIBUS COMPANY (WAGES AND CONDITIONS)
  EASTERN NATIONAL OMNIBUS COMPANY (WAGES AND CONDITIONS)
AGRICULTURE
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Fertiliser Permits
  Fertiliser Permits
  NORTHERN DISTRICT POST OFFICE (HOURS OF DUTY)
  NORTHERN DISTRICT POST OFFICE (HOURS OF DUTY)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  W.A.A.F. (Hats)
  W.A.A.F. (Hats)
  Men (Tour of Duty)
  Men (Tour of Duty)
  LEPROSY
  LEPROSY
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF DUTIES)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF DUTIES)
  CLOSED SHOPS (REOPENING)
  CLOSED SHOPS (REOPENING)
  INDIANS, GREAT BRITAIN (TRAINING AND STUDY)
  INDIANS, GREAT BRITAIN (TRAINING AND STUDY)
  WAR RISKS ASSURANCE (EIRE VESSELS)
  WAR RISKS ASSURANCE (EIRE VESSELS)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  Campbell Richard, Lord Bishop of Wakefield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:

    BOROUGH OF BEDDINGTON AND WALLINGTON ORDER.
    The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    CATCHMENT BOARDS' SEA DEFENCE PROBLEMS.
    LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH rose to call attention to the impossible situation in which certain catchment boards find themselves with regard to the provision and maintenance of sea walls and sea defences; to ask what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in remedy; and to move for Papers.
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I trust I do not have to apologize to your Lordships' House for occupying a few minutes of your time on so dull a subject. I feel not, because in the first place it is open to anybody to take a more generous allowance for lunch than usual, and in the second place because the land drainage of this country is a matter of supreme importance. I do not think it would be too much to say that the war agricultural
    794
    committees in a great number of cases—possibly in the majority—have found the deficiency in our drainage system to be the main cause of the failure to get maximum food production. To tell the truth I think our land drainage was in a deplorable situation at the outbreak of war and I trust it will never be allowed to sink to that level again. I am going to deal only with one aspect of land drainage, but I believe there will be a strong consensus of opinion that the whole of our drainage legislation is in fact due for another overhaul. I am dealing only with sea walls and sea defences and they, in the same way as the rest of land drainage, are now governed by the Land Drainage Act of 1930, which was the result of a Royal Commission set up in 1927.
    This Act of 1930 was the Act produced by the Labour Government of the day. Prior to that Act sea walls and sea defences, in company with other drainage, were in effect an affair mainly for the landowners themselves and they were supervised, or supervised themselves, by means of a variety of bodies. There were, in fact, no fewer than 361 such bodies which supervised their operations. The number was drastically cut down by this Act and land drainage was placed in the hands of a comparatively small number of catchment boards who operated the greater catchment areas of this country The Act was a great advance upon what had been done before and I think landowners generally ought to be, and I believe are, very grateful to the Party of the noble Lord who sits opposite, Lord Addison, for having introduced that Bill, the more so as sometimes that Party does not seem to be quite so solicitous for the good health, shall we say, of the landowning class.
    LORD ADDISON: Oh!
    LORD CRANWORTH: Perhaps I should not have said "good health." Anyhow, I for one am very grateful for that measure. The Act quite naturally set up machinery for finding the expenses of such boards. The financial arrangements it made to finance the boards were three. The first one was by means of a precept on the county councils and the county borough councils in catchment areas concerned. But there were two provisos to that. The first was that the precept could not exceed a 2d. rate with-

    795
    out the consent of the majority of the board concerned, and the second was that the same level rate should operate over the whole catchment area. Thus it is impossible to make a precept on the county council for 3d. and on a county borough for 1d.; the rate has to be the same in both cases. The second method of finance was a precept on internal drainage boards. That produces a very small sum in all cases and it is also, I regret to say, sometimes somewhat difficult to collect. The third method of finance was by Government grants towards the loans contracted by the catchment boards for the purposes of their work, the grants varying according to circumstances and times. Again there was a proviso of some importance. The grants towards these loan charges could only be made to new works or works of improvement; they could not be made for maintenance works. The result is that each new work which is undertaken by a catchment board increases its responsibilities and lessens its power of meeting them.
    Now this Act was welcomed by a majority of counties who have no sea walls and no sea defences and was received with nonchalance by counties whose penny rate produces such a sum that they see no immediate danger of collapse. I am going, however, to instance the case of one catchment board, not because it is an extreme case, but because I happen to be a member of it and I know its exact difficulties only too well. The case is that of the Catchment Board of East Suffolk. Now East Suffolk is a small and poor agricultural county. Before the war a penny rate produced approximately £4,000, but I am sorry to say that owing to the incidence of war a penny rate now produces considerably less. This small catchment board has no less than 112 miles of sea defences and sea walls, and these 112 miles protect approximately only an area of 30o acres per mile. That is to say, the defences go back on an average only half a mile. Their income from a 2½d, rate is £16,000, of which £6,200 comes from the county council and £6,800 from the county borough of Ipswich. I would here say a word in commendation of the public spirit of the county borough of Ipswich. Although they contribute a greater sum than the county they do not receive onetenth—considerably less than one-tenth
    796
    —of the assistance from the catchment board that the county receives. Yet they have consented to go up to a 2½d. rate and indeed in this year they have agreed for one year only to another penny on top of that. The internal drainage board finds £3,000, making in all, as I said, £16,000.
    Our maintenance of internal drainage cost £8,500 and that figure was estimated before the full increase which has taken place in the rate of maintenance, because it is noteworthy that since the war began the cost of work generally, including labour and materials, has increased by approximately 100 per cent. That is to say, what could be done for £16,000 now takes £32,000. Our loan charges on a loan of £173,000 come to £4,500. For our overhead charges and upkeep of these walls we have left —3,000, not a very big sum. This year in the spring tides we had three or four breaks in our walls, flooding large acreages of valuable land. To stop these gaps an immediate expenditure of £8,000 is required and to make the walls in the immediate neighbourhood anything like safe means an expenditure of another £48,000. But we have not got it. These areas still remain flooded. You cannot fill a breach in a wall with an overdraft, nor indeed can you fill it with Government forms, however plentifully they are showered upon you. It has not been done. These breaches are still in existence and big acreages of land, pasturage and arable, remain flooded. But that only touches the fringe of the problem. To make our sea walls even moderately trustworthy requires an immediate expenditure estimated at £375,000, and to make a proper job the estimate is £800,000. These estimates were made before the full rise in cost had occurred.
    It must be obvious to your Lordships that if we were to do it the interest on our loan charges would absorb, and doubly absorb, the whole of the income of the catchment board. It is therefore an undeniable fact that the East Suffolk River Catchment Board is bankrupt and doubly bankrupt. I have taken the case of East Suffolk, but there are others to my knowledge equally had. The Severn I know to be in the greatest difficulties, and in Kent, another county that has suffered from the ravages of war, they are faced with an expenditure of over £2,250,000. They are a much

    797
    richer county, and I do not suppose they suffer from the same bankruptcy as we do, but I imagine their position is very serious. They sent up a memorandum to the County Councils Association which is well worth study and from which I should like to quote to your Lordships the last two paragraphs. The first is to the effect that the whole cost of the provision and maintenance of sea defence works should be defrayed out of national funds. The second says that a comprehensive system of co-ordination and co-operation in regard to sea defence works throughout the whole country should be established by His Majesty's Government, and that any system of co-ordination should provide that, when sea defence works affect land drainage interests in relation to any catchment area, the catchment board for that area should be the agency to carry out the works.
    I want to make a special point, and it is this. The immediate cost of repairing and maintaining these sea walls is a great deal more than the value of the land to be protected. In some cases it is ten times as much. When the catchment board went to the Ministry to ask what they should do in such a case they were told that it was the duty of the catchment board and no one else to decide whether they would repair these walls or whether they would not, and which walls they would repair and which walls they would leave. I submit to your Lordships that that is a pretty invidious duty to place upon a catchment board. It means that they must say to Mr. A., who is a landowner who has been paying taxes in order that his land should be protected, "My dear Mr. A., we are going to protect your land"; and to say to Mr. B., a man who has done exactly the same thing—and your Lordships will realize that both Mr. A. and Mr. B. are almost certainly known to every member of the catchment board—"We propose to let your lands go into the sea." That would be invidious indeed. This is not a big island, and I do submit that it is wrong and improper that the onus should be or a small, isolated and bankrupt body to decide what portion of this land should be allowed to go into the sea, and what portion should be preserved.
    The noble Duke, who, I understand, is going to answer my question, may say, as ether people have said: "You in Suffolk are very fortunate people, you live
    798
    in the best climate in England, and among the nicest people. You must take the rough with the smooth." If the noble Duke were to say that I should agree with his premises entirely, although sometimes it does not seem to me that the Ministry in which he takes such an illustrious part is altogether agreed about our niceness. There is extreme difficulty in collecting a large tax which is patently unjust, and it might amount to an impossibility.
    One more point and that, I think, the most important. In my own county of Suffolk during the last century we have seen scores of square miles of valuable country fall into the sea, and we have expended vast sums in order to prevent the trouble becoming even worse. If we look over the seas that face us we see Holland and Denmark who, during that same period, have not only lost nothing but have added to their shores even greater areas than we have lost. What: is more remarkable still is that, whereas in losing our land we have spent vast sums, they have made a profit over the whole transaction. Of course I am well aware that there are conditions in regard to seas, tides, terrain and other matters which are largely responsible for this, but I very much doubt if that is the sole reason. I believe that the skill, co-operation and coordination on the other side of those waters may have something to do with it. I recall that a few years back there was a big inundation in Norfolk at Horsey Mere, and Dutch experts were called in to advise on the reclamation of the area. They expressed themselves as being completely amazed at the ignorance and lack of coordination of those in charge of our sea defences. Probably some of your Lordships are aware that our greatest feat of reclamation in the Bedford fens was the work of a Dutch engineer, Vermuyden.
    What is the remedy? I suggest that there is only one remedy, and that is the remedy put forward by Kent. That is that sea walls and sea defences generally should become a national charge. Your Lordships are probably aware—indeed you cannot but be aware—that very many bodies lately have been putting forward programmes for post-war agriculture—the Royal Agricultural Society of England, the C.L.A., the N.F.U., workers' organizations, the Council of Agriculture, a Committee of your Lordships' House and

    799
    several more. I really might say that the only authoritative body that has not done so is His Majesty's Ministry of Agriculture. I hope that a programme from that Ministry is now on its way. But every one of those bodies to which I have referred has considered this question, and has said definitely that sea walls and sea defences should be a national charge.
    A more remarkable indication of feeling came about in this way. The Royal Agricultural Society of England, the other day, convened a meeting of those bodies which have produced reports. All the bodies accepted and were represented at the meeting. They endeavoured to find a general consensus of agreement with regard to post-war agriculture, on the main principles, and they did succeed to, I think, a remarkable extent, in getting a consensus of opinion on fourteen main points. One of those points, which was passed unanimously and with acclamation, was that sea walls and sea defences should be a national charge. I submit that that is a vast body of evidence, and very authoritative evidence, too. Such evidence, it seems to me, can hardly be disregarded. You, may say, further, I think, that it is a matter of common sense that the preservation of the land of this country, the decision as to what land shall be preserved and what shall be thrown into the sea, is a matter for the nation, not for small bodies, and should be dealt with nationally.
    Indeed, my Lords, the Government are the only people who can do it. They alone have adequate resources, they alone can put their hands on the experts and men of experience at home and abroad, who can do it, by co-ordination—not by doing what is so often done now, done naturally but very wrongfully, just throwing the sea on to your neighbour. That is what most of these bodies do. If they can, they throw the sea on to their neighbour and then they are quite happy. That sort of thing is not good enough. You want a co-ordinated policy. That can only be brought about by making the whole matter one for the nation to decide, and one in connexion with which the nation must take the necessary action. I do not think that ever in this House or elsewhere I have been a passionate advocate of nationalization, but in this case I am indeed an advocate of nationalization,
    800
    and that in the quickest possible time. I beg to move.
    THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, my noble friend when he raised this question said he trusted he did not have to apologize for keeping the House for a few minutes on this subject, and I shall not make any apologies on my own part because I feel that it is a very important question. With regard to the area of which he has spoken, with the full knowledge he possesses of it, I will not follow him except to say that I also live in a county which is within a catchment area and bounded by the sea, and I leave it for him to decide whether it is more beautiful and better populated than the county from which he comes. The connexion of sea defence with land drainage is quite clear, and it is impossible for them to be separated in the matter of their maintenance. If the land is to be drained, it is not only necessary to have an escape for the water, but for those areas which lie below the tidal level there must be some form of protection to exclude that surplus water. The drainage authorities, therefore, have always been concerned not only with the maintenance of the land but also with the watercourses and drains and the banks, sluices and other defences which prevent water, including sea-water, from coming in. That was fully recognized in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which actually defines drainage as including defence against sea-water.
    Coastal erosion, of course, does not necessarily have any effect on land drainage. Where cliffs are being eroded, and the land behind them is above the level of high tides, drainage authorities will not usually be concerned. It is only where coast erosion may have an effect on agricultural land that it comes under the Ministry of Agriculture; other Departments are concerned where the land affected is not used for agriculture. I refer to this matter simply because, as many of your Lordships may remember, a Royal Commission on Coast Erosion sat in the early part of this century and reported against any form of State aid towards coast protection works. In making that recommendation they went so far as to exclude grants towards sea

    801
    defences for land drainage purposes. That part of their Report, however, was superseded by the Report of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage in 1927, to which my noble friend has referred, and it was as a result of that Royal Commission of 1927 that the Land Drainage Act, 1930, came into being. It was under that Act that catchment boards as such were established, not only for drainage works inland but also for sea defence.
    This is the system under which Lord Cranworth suggests that in particular his own catchment area, and possibly others, are in what I think he calls an impossible situation. I will say at once that we fully appreciate the heavy burden which falls on these catchment boards in the maintenance of sea defence work. Whether that burden is in fact too grievous to be borne, even with the very generous State aid which is available by means of grants, is another matter; but I am quite sure that, whatever view you may take of the catchment boards, the Land Drainage Act, 1930, has put matters into a far better state than they were in before. I think it is only right to pay tribute to the great amount of work which has been carried out since these catchment boards were set up, and I would particularly refer to the work which is being done in Norfolk, Essex, Kent and Sussex and on the south side of the Humber.
    In order that your Lordships may understand the enormous advance which has been made in land drainage, I would ask you to look for a moment at the situation which was found to exist when the Royal Commission made their investigations. They found that the existing land drainage authorities were a hotch-potch of bodies with widely differing constitutions and powers. There were Commissions of Sewers issued under the Great Seal by virtue of the Statute of Sewers of 1531, drainage commissions or boards constituted under private and local Acts, elective drainage boards constituted under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and small bodies acting under in-closure awards or merely by private agreement between landowners. There were two geographical limitations which were common to them all. The breadth of their areas for rating and working purposes never extended beyond the bounds of the lands which derived benefit from their operations; that is, they were
    802
    relatively narrow lowland strips; whilst lengthwise they were never the full length of the river which was affected. The co-ordinated treatment of drainage problems for a whole river basin was thus, impossible, even if the lowlands had been able, with their own money, to pay all the expenses; the lowlanders had always the grievance that the upland people paid nothing towards the cost and were relying on the lowlanders to provide the whole of the money.
    The Land Drainage Act, 1930, for the first time enabled drainage authorities to be set up which directly controlled the major part of each of the great river systems of England and Wales, whose sources of revenue extended right up to the watersheds of those systems. There are thus to-day two types of statutory drainage district in England and Wales. There is the catchment board of the new type, covering a whole catchment area, and there is the local drainage district or internal drainage district.
    The grant which the Minister is able to give under the 1930 Act to these areas is limited to works of improvement and new construction, and is subject to the approval of the Treasury. In practice the rate of grant is assessed with an eye to the financial resources and commitments of the individual catchment boards. The most convenient guide to the financial position of a catchment board is its precept on the councils in its area, expressed in terms of a penny rate. A poor board, or a board with much work to do, will have a high precept and a correspondingly high rate of grant; a rich board, or a board with not so much work to do, will have a low grant. Thus the Old Haven and Bulverhy the Stream Catchment Board, who have considerable sea defence responsibilities but whose area extends into Eastbourne and Hastings, can obtain £6,300 from a penny rate. They have in fact in the past been able to meet their expenses with a precept of a little over a halfpenny, and have received a 15 per cent. grant. The large River Trent Catchment Board can obtain nearly £116,000 for a penny rate and have in fact precepted at about 1-d.; their £1,000,000 main river improvement scheme receives a 30 per cent. grant. At the other end of the scale the River Ancholme Catchment Board in North Lincolnshire, and

    803
    the Rother and Jury's Gut Catchment Board in East Sussex and South Kent can obtain only £550 and £1,450 from a penny rate, and have had to precept at 6d. and 7d. They have been grant-aided at 75 per cent.
    The House will note that in making these grants we have not so far differentiated between sea defence work and ordinary inland drainage work, but for the future, in deference to the representations which have been made by the catchment boards, we are going to make a distinction in favour of sea defence works. Before I come to that, however, let me review the enormous advance which has been made in arterial drainage, including sea defence, under the catchment board system. Thirteen years, during which we have had an economic depression and a war, have been much too short a time in which to make up the neglect into which main river drainage has fallen, and which was obvious when this Act came into force. But in that time no less than £16,000,000 worth of main river schemes, including sea defence work, has been submitted by catchment boards and approved for grant. Although much of the work came to a standstill when this war broke out, we have been able to spend £4,500,000 on main river work, which has had a direct bearing on food production.
    If I may turn to sea defences and the main problem which is confronting my noble friend at this moment, I would just refer to the deputation which the Minister of Agriculture received last January from the Catchment Boards' Association. They put forward proposals, first that the whole cost of providing and maintaining sea defence works should be defrayed out of national funds, and secondly, that a comprehensive system of co-ordination and co-operation in regard to these works should be established by the Government. They suggested that such a system should provide that where sea defence works affect drainage interests in relation to catchment areas, the catchment board should be the agency to carry out the works. The case put forward in support of these proposals was that some catchment boards have to undertake sea defence works which are beyond the scope of true drainage works, that the catchment boards, operating singly, have not
    804
    enough jurisdiction properly to undertake these works, and that the enormous cost is a burden which the peculiarly limited basis of catchment boards was never designed to carry. The Association argued more particularly that sea defences protected many interests other than land drainage, that their effects may extend far beyond the catchment area in which they are carried out, and that they therefore required co-ordination throughout the country.
    It will be clear from my opening remarks that land drainage cannot be divorced from such sea defence works as affect it. It is equally clear that ordinary drainage works, like sea defence works, also benefit many other interests and are a matter of national concern. This national concern is, recognized in both cases by Government grants, but it hardly justifies a demand that the whole cost should be borne by the State. So far as greater co-ordination is concerned, this will be heartily welcomed, particularly in the Humber Estuary, but it is open to catchment boards to come together themselves without asking for a 100 per cent. grant from the State, as has already been done in the Thames Estuary. In short, the Minister thought that the Catchment Boards' Association had put forward a very reasonable case, and as a result, he was able to tell them that the Treasury would consider generous financial treat-merit for sea defence works. I am now able to inform the House that we are prepared to go further and to agree to a maximum grant of 80 per cent. to meet those cases where the financial difficulties of catchment boards are most acute. I must emphasize, however, that this is a maximum grant and by no means all the cases which will come forward will be justified in receiving it.
    In the meantime the Minister asked for certain information from the Catchment Boards' Association, which they have submitted to him, and they ask in particular that the maintenance of sea defences, as well as the improvement of existing and the construction of new works should be considered. These matters will be considered, but I must make it clear that under the present legislation, the 1930 Act, the Minister has no right to extend his powers beyond improvement, and if maintenance is to be included new legislation would have to be brought in. Before that step could be taken very careful con-

    805
    sideration would have to be given to this matter. I know that my noble friend has had certain trouble in his own catchment area, but I hope that he has now taken steps, both there and here, to try to bring this to an end. Possibly the small concession which I have been able to announce this afternoon will satisfy him, and I hope make him feel that his journey was worth while.
    LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I must thank the noble Duke for his sympathetic reply and for the element of hope that he put before us at the end of his speech. I am afraid that he would be the first to admit that his speech and the promise that he holds out will not close the overdraft of my catchment board, nor yet the breaches which exist in our walls, still less remove the water off the flooded area. I quite appreciate that it was not in his power to do that, and I can only thank him for the sympathy of his reply and trust that the hope that he expressed at the end of his speech may be more completely fulfilled than I myself anticipate. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

    SEGREGATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
    LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART has given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Govern-men what steps have been taken to segregate Austrian and so-called Sudeten, that is German-Bohemian, prisoners of war from the ordinary Teuto-Prussians; and whether any such salutory measures are being applied to the German-speaking prisoners of war taken by the Armed Forces of this country and merely held for convenience in the United States or Canada.
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the question that stands in my name, and before considering any further comments on the matter it would be only reasonable to hear the reply I am about to receive. I say this with the greater alacrity in that I understand that, anyhow, I should be out of order in making a speech at this point.
    THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords—
    SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
    LORD STRABOLGI: I understand my noble friend beside me is quite in order in discussing this matter.
    THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not wish to do anything out of order.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, the noble Earl is quite in order in speaking, although there is no Motion.
    THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I just want to add a word or two on this question of the segregation of prisoners of war into racial groups. I should like to suggest to the Minister who will answer the question that, instead of the racial division which is proposed in the question, it should rather be a political division, because in practice we must all recognize that this is a war of ideologies rather than a war of races. In fact we see among the Austrians that Adolf Hitler is a great exponent of the Nazi ideal. In any prison camp, as in any community, there must be a large proportion of followers, led and ruled by a small minority of leaders. I think you must find in any prison camp a small percentage of Nazis dominating the other prisoners and forcing Nazi ideals down their throats, and in my view you should segregate these unfortunate or misled Germans. If not, they may become more confirmed Nazis than perhaps they were when they were captured. I want to emphasize that it should be a political division—not a segregation of the Anti-Nazis from the Nazis, but rather a segregation of the violent Nazis from the mass of prisoners.
    Perhaps also it would be possible for the noble Lord to say what proportion of members of the Nazi Party there is roughly among these prisoners, and what has happened, for instance, to the 999 Division captured in Tunisia who were all Anti-Nazis detailed for most dangerous and unpleasant work. I do not want to continue further, but I would like to suggest that perhaps some Commission of inquiry might be appointed to go into this subject of the prison camps because there have been unpleasant stories in the papers. Particularly I refer to what happened in Canada where two unfortunate Anti-Nazis were bullied and then murdered. One would be greatly relieved in one's mind if some Commission, taking evidence in camera, investigated this matter.
    LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, as the noble Earl's speech entirely misrepresents the question that is on the Paper, I should like to reply to it right away. There is nothing racial whatever about my proposal. The plain fact is that Austria and the so-called German Sudetenland are going to be taken away from Germany, and it is on that basis that I wish the prisoners to be segregated. I differ entirely, as a matter of fact, from the last speaker in considering this an ideological war, in that I consider it a war to defeat the German lust for world domination. I do not think that is ideological at all. In the case of Austria, her destiny has been settled by the Moscow Declaration. It is on that basis that I ask that the prisoners be segregated. As regards the so-called Sudeten German, there is, as a matter of fact, "no such person." The so-called Sudeten Germans are merely German Bohemians who have invited themselves to live in Bohemia. Your Lordships may remember that in the 'nineties there was a bit of a campaign by the Hohenzollerns to detach these areas from their Hapsburg allies. There was nothing racial about that. It was ambitious and nothing else. The campaign was a flop, but that does not matter. It is well known that these Sudeten Germans or, as I prefer to call them, German Bohemians, have given a great deal of trouble, and this time they have either to behave themselves or go home. That is well recognized by the Party to which the noble Earl belongs. In the Report of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party it is said that all Germans living outside the postwar German frontiers, unless they are willing to be loyal subjects of the States in which they find themselves, without claiming any special privileges, should go back to Germany. There is nothing racial about that, and that is the basis on which I ask that segregation should take place.
    LORD CROFT: My Lords, as I indicated when I was invited to express my opinion, it was competent for any noble Lord to offer some remarks on this question. My noble friend was probably aware in asking his question that he was entitled, as usual, to make a speech on the question. Perhaps I should say it is unusual, after deciding not to make a
    808
    speech in asking the question, to make a speech later. I only mention that with great deference because I believe that is the custom in your Lordship's House. My noble friend will forgive me if, first of all, I try briefly to answer the points made by the noble Earl opposite. He suggested that prisoners should be segregated into political divisions. That is not a subject that I have been able to take counsel about. It is not included in the question. I would only say, as on reflection my noble friend will probably agree, that there might have to be a very great many stages to be gone through if we attempted to practise segregation in this form. But I am sure the noble Earl's view will be taken note of when the debate is read. Then he asked a question as to what proportion of the prisoners are Nazis. I cannot answer that question at present, but I should be very glad to ascertain the information if possible.
    With regard to the question on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Vansittart, the Joint Declaration issued at the Moscow Conference made it clear that it was the desire of the three signatory Governments to see re-established a free and independent Austria. His Majesty's Government have considered it a logical consequence of the Declaration to segregate Austrian from German prisoners of war. Hitherto Sudeten Germans have not been treated in this way. His Majesty's Government are, however, prepared to consider the question of the segregation of Sudeten German prisoners with a view to deciding whether it is either desirable or practicable. I should like to make it clear, however, that it is at present by no means certain that it is either desirable or practicable. As regards the Austrians, the policy I mentioned has been carried out as far as it is administratively practicable to do so. In North Africa and in the Middle East, where considerable numbers of the German prisoners are held, the segregation is complete: that is Austrians and Germans have no contact with one another. In other respects the Austrians are treated in the same way as other prisoners of war. The number of German prisoners held in this country, as my noble friend will be aware, is relatively small and the number of Austrians is of course much smaller still. It is therefore not in all cases administratively practicable to make the arrange-

    809
    ments which are necessary in order to separate Germans and Austrians.
    As the noble Lord indicates in his question German prisoners are held by the United States of America and in the Dominions. But the terms of the noble Lord's question are perhaps somewhat misleading in this connexion. All Allied Governments, and this includes the Dominions, share the burden of providing accommodation for prisoners of war captured by the Allied Forces. Each Government is separately and independently responsible under the Geneva Convention for these prisoners of war it holds as Detaining Power. It has been suggested to the Canadian and Australian Governments that they might consider taking measures similar to those taken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I should emphasize, however, that this is entirely a matter for those Governments.
    LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not want to take advantage of the fact that I have a right to speak and the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has exhausted his right, so I will not reply to his provocative remarks to my noble friend beside me. But I would like to express my sympathy with my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, because, although quite rightly as I consider, my noble friend beside me raised the real crux of the matter, that was not in the printed question and naturally the noble Lord, Lord Croft, did not have notice of it and could not make the inquiries.
    I should, however, like if I may to put this argument to him. The information which reaches my noble friends on these Benches is rather disturbing. Quite apart from the question of the Austrians—and I personally agree with the segregation and with the arguments put forward by Lord Vansittart for segregating the Austrians—I believe the administration of the camps on the political plane does require more attention. The camp commandants are mostly retired officers, men with very distinguished careers but of a certain age, who, to put it quite plainly, do not want trouble. They look after the health and other interests of the men, but if they can arrange for the prisoners in the camps to run themselves they allow that to happen. The same thing of course takes place in Germany. In the prison camps there, at any rate where the British and American
    810
    prisoners are, you have the same state of affairs. Prisoners will look after themselves and keep order and peace. The elderly German commandants are only too glad for that to be done.
    The same thing occurs here; it is only human nature. But what happens in the case of the German prisoners? In practice it means that the ardent Nazis rule the roost. They keep order and take very good care to suppress, and in sane cases oppress, their fellow-countrymen who have seen the error of their ways. My noble friend quoted the cases of murder in Canada, and I am sorry to say I hear of bullying in this country of Anti-Nazis carried out by these Nazi thugs. The suggestion we wish to make from these Benches—and my noble friend is not alone in this matter—is that great care should be taken to separate these dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, these strong party men who are probably incorrigible, from the others. We think they should be put in separate camps so that the others may have some chance, by discussion, reading, listening to the wireless and other experiences, of seeing the evils of the régime which they have hitherto served.
    In this connexion I must say I think the United Nations and our country in particular, have been unenterprising in using prisoners who are favourable to our cause. If the Germans can get any recalcitrant Poles, Czechs or Indians, they promptly put them into fighting units and make the greatest use of them both for propaganda and military purposes. If we can find prisoners who are willing to help, prisoners who have seen the evils of Nazism, I think we ought to use them. That is the suggestion we wish to make to my noble friend. I am sorry he was not given notice of it but I am sure he will be sympathetic. I assure him there has been a lot of uneasiness at the policy of drift with regard to these German prisoners of war camps, with perhaps evil results, and it has been suggested that at the end of the war the only convinced Nazis left will be prisoners of war.

    MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC WARFARE
    VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies

    811
    given by the Minister of Economic Warfare in the House of Lords debate on the 9th of May to certain questions put to him regarding the future arrangements outlined by him for closing down the Department of Economic Warfare after the war with Germany is terminated, they will cause a White Paper to be issued at an early date setting out the proposals in detail in order that Parliament may have full opportunity to discuss them before they are brought into force; and to move for Papers.
    The noble Viscount said: My Lords, last week there was a debate in your Lordships' House on the operations of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. Although the Motion introducing that debate had not a single reference to the future of the Department, the Minister in charge, my noble friend Lord Selborne, at the end of his reply, made a statement regarding that future. Why he chose that particular moment to make this disclosure I cannot say, but he certainly surprised some of your Lordships, certainly myself, by doing so, and not only by the act of doing so but by some of the facts which he disclosed. He further made what I regarded as an astonishing statement, that the proposals that he laid before us had been agreed between the Foreign Secretary and himself as Minister for Economic Warfare, and he made no mention as to whether His Majesty's Government had agreed to them or not.
    After very careful study of his speech in Hansard and of his reply, I have summed up his statement regarding the future of his Department as follows. First, I wish to say to my noble friend that in doing so I have tried to be as accurate as possible, and in order to make it more convenient I propose to make certain comments on the details of that statement as I proceed with my speech. As a preliminary he informed us that the Ministry of Economic Warfare is divided into two parts, first of all the administration of the blockade, and secondly the Economic Intelligence Branch, which is known as the Enemy Branch. He then went on to tell us that as soon as the war with Germany is terminated, steps will be taken to close down the Ministry so far as the blockade is concerned, and that so far as the blockade with Japan is concerned a separate Department in England
    812
    was not necessary for the purpose as our American Allies are the greatest authorities on the economic situation as it exists in those waters.
    In my speech I questioned him closely on this point. With our immense trade interests in the Far East I cannot see that we can afford to leave the blockade entirely in the hands of the Americans without proper representation. Indeed I feel that the blockade in the Far East should be a joint operation between the Ministry of Economic Warfare and whatever department exists for that purpose in the United States of America. For that purpose alone I should have thought it was necessary to retain the Ministry of Economic Warfare until the war with Japan was concluded. I could get no satisfactory reply on that question.
    Now I should like to pass to that section of the Department known as the Enemy Branch or the Economic Intelligence Branch. So far as this branch is concerned, that is the Economic Intelligence Branch, it is to be handed over to the Foreign Office and to become the Economic Intelligence Branch of the Foreign Office. This, my noble friend stated, had been agreed to already by the Foreign Secretary, and indeed he went on to say that the Economic Intelligence Branch had already been handed over to the Foreign Office partially and that it was now known as the Enemy Branch of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Economic Warfare—not the Enemy Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Foreign Office. The transference had gone so far that it had already gone to the Foreign Office—partially, as he himself explained. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this branch has crossed the threshold of the Foreign Office, evidently to stay. In fact, the break-up of the Department has already started apparently by the ipse dixit of the two Ministers concerned. Unless the Government have agreed to this—and we know nothing about that, my noble friend did not advise us at all on that side of the question—then it seems to me that my noble friend and the Foreign Secretary have acted ultra vires.
    What will be the effect of handing over the Economic Intelligence Branch to the Foreign Office? The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in his speech, let the cat out of the bag. He evidently knew what had

    813
    been arranged because he spoke before my noble friend had an opportunity of saying anything. What Lord Rennell said was that the handing over of the Economic Intelligence Branch to the Foreign afice—and he advocated it very strongly and, if I may say so, very ably—would give back to the Foreign Office what was taken away from it after the last war—namely, presumably, the control of overseas trade which was after the last war vested in the Overseas Trade Department by Parliamentary decree and statutory action.
    In a very few words I should like to describe exactly what happened at that time. The Department of Overseas Trade was established somewhere towards the end of the war for the purpose of administering and controlling overseas trade with Europe and other foreign Powers. I am riot talking about the Dominions or the Colonies. When the Geddes Committee was sitting in 1923 or 1924 that Committee recommended for the sake of economy that the Department of Overseas Trade should be abolished. That aroused great objection, publicly voiced, on the part of the commercial bodies in this country, and so the Government appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, to advise them upon it. I cannot remember the exact date but about 1925 or 1926 that Committee reported. They advised that the Foreign Office should not be commercialized and strongly recommended that the Department of Overseas Trade should be retained in its existing form. Upon that there were further debates. I have been looking up those debates and I find—it is only of personal interest to me—that I actually made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House upon that subject. I feel that I was one of those who helped to retain that Department in the State and I shall do my best, having some knowledge of the advantages it has given, to see that in the future its powers are not whittled away. Under these present proposals therefore a decision deliberately taken by Parliament is to be reversed solely by Ministerial action without Parliament being given the opportunity to consider the wisdom or the non-wisdom of the steps proposed. I submit that that is a subversion of our Parliamentary procedure and of our Constitution.
    But there is a still further arrangement between the two Ministries which will require great force of argument to make me believe that it can be right. What is proposed in the Foreign Office when Germany is defeated is that through the Economic Intelligence Branch which is to be attached, and which has already been partially attached to the Foreign Office; the Foreign Office shall have responsibility for planning and controlling presumably the many economic operations that will follow the defeat of Germany. My noble friend summed up that part of his proposals in a paragraph which I should like to read to your Lordships. It is in col. 647 of the Official Report. My noble friend said:
    "Quite apart from the manifold uses of economic intelligence for fighting the war, economic intelligence is of vital importance for the planning of many operations which will follow the defeat of Germany. In the first place, there is intelligence for the Far Eastern war,"—
    I have already referred to that—
    "economic disarmament and economic control of Germany, reparations, the economic effects of frontier rectification, the rehabilitation of occupied territories, the development of economic sources of supply to allow Europe to recuperate. These are matters on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers will need expert advice in the months immediately succeeding the Armistice."
    That paragraph alone is sufficient to show that these proposals require very careful consideration by Parliament before they are put into force.
    The importance and magnitude of the operations involved seem to require a Department with a special Minister to administer them, not a sub-department of the Foreign Office which is already overworked and will be even more overworked when this war ends, and work on all these particular matters begins. I ask your Lordships to say whether you believe that the Foreign Office is the appropriate Department to control such functions. Personally, I do not think so. Surely these proposed functions are not compatible with the proper and usual functions of the Foreign Office. On the one hand you have smooth diplomacy, on the other hand ruthless repression, because that is the only sort of treatment that can be applied to Germany with success until the points mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, have been settled, or until Germany has paid the

    815
    penalty for her misdeeds. Both these functions, smooth diplomacy and ruthless repression, are to be supplied by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is to become a sort of Jekyll and Hyde Department, a role which, I submit, will fit ill that most dignified Department of the State, and it might very well spell the ruin of our foreign policy after the war.
    I am not going to suggest to-day who should take on this thankless and gigantic task, but of one thing I am certain—it is necessary that the whole question as to what organization it should be, and the form it should take, should receive the very closest consideration and deliberation in Parliament, and that for that purpose alone the present proposals should be submitted in a White Paper in more detailed form for the consideration of Parliament. All these proposals require close scrutiny and discussion in Parliament. It was emphasized only yesterday in this House by the Minister of Reconstruction that what will matter most after the war will be our export trade, upon which we shall have to rely to rehabilitate our economic system. All these proposals are bound up with that vital question. It is all wrong that they should be forced through Parliament in this hole-and-corner fashion. I resent it, and there are other members of your Lordships' House who resent it. Many members of the House of Commons resent it, too. Those members have, in the past few months, shown in no silent manner what they feel about the proposals being brought forward and placed before the House by a Minister without any real notice that these things were going to be done or any indication of what the proposals are.
    I can assure your Lordships that a great deal of time, a great many differences, and a great amount of heat and argument will be saved by laying these proposals before Parliament in the form of a White Paper so that we may know what they are about. It will be of great assistance to my noble friend and to the Foreign Secretary in getting their proposals through. I do not suggest, for a moment, that I am necessarily right over this, or that others must be right. I may be wrong. But I do say, at least let us have a full discussion with all the details in front of us set out in such a form that we can understand them, and not misunderstand
    816
    them. Let us have these things in a White Paper. It is for that reason that I bring forward this Motion to-day and I urge my noble friend to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
    THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I listened with great attention to the case made by the noble Viscount who has introduced this Motion, but it does seem to me, with great respect, that it is based on a fundamental error. In that Motion the noble Viscount maintains that the replies given by the Minister of Economic Warfare in the debate on May 9 were unsatisfactory. Now I venture to assert that those replies were considered satisfactory, not only by myself but by the great majority of your Lordships' House. In support of my belief, may I remind your Lordships of the debate which took place in this House on March 25 and continued on March 30 last year? That debate was about the reform of the Foreign Service. It had as its subject, its main subject, the White Paper in which His Majesty's Government proposed the amalgamation of the Diplomatic Service with the Consular Service and with the Diplomatic Commercial Service. The proposals were later approved by both Houses. Now the White Paper stated that economics and finance had become inextricably interwoven with politics, and speaker after speaker—speakers of such eminence as Lord Cecil, Lord Tyrrell and Lord Hankey—insisted on the necessity of a strong economic branch in the Foreign Office. Lord Addison, speaking for the Labour Party, expressed the fear that the reforms relating to the recruitment for the Foreign Service would be too late, and he said that there should be set up—I do not think I shall be misinterpreting him in saying this—at the earliest possible moment, a diplomatic staff at the centre of affairs consisting of persons who shall be competent to advise on all matters affecting trade, industry, social conditions and so on. That was Lord Addison's view.
    After the last war, the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office was suppressed, and the Department of Overseas Trade was created. I will revert to the latter in a short time. The result, however, was that there was a wide gap in the organization of the Foreign Office, and although the Economic Relations Department was established, it was not

    817
    of sufficient strength and authority to advise tile Secretary of State on the possible effect of economic and financial measures on our foreign policy, and also to digest and adapt to the best national use the economic information which flows to the Foreign Office from abroad. The Foreign Office was compelled in economic and commercial matters to act very largely as a post office, and I am sorry to say that there was a serious lack of coordination in economic and political factors in our Foreign Office as a result of what happened. If you compare the Economic Relations Department of the Foreign Office with the economic branches which were maintained by the greater number of European Foreign Offices, you will find that these latter attached far greater importance than we did to what may be called politico-economic subjects.
    However this may be—and I now come to the particular point raised by the noble Viscount—on the outbreak of war the Economic Relations Branch of the Foreign Office lapsed, and its staff was lent to the Ministry of Economic Warfare. I presume that the noble Lord is not opposed to restitution. That staff, according to the statement made by the noble Lord, is to be returned to the Foreign Office, and I hope that its numbers will be largely increased in the meantime, so that the Secretary of State will have ultimately at his disposal a really first-class competent authority, who will be competent to advise him of the effect on political relations not only of economic measures taken by foreign countries but also of economic proposals which we ourselves make. Such a staff, if it is to be effective, must clearly be under the authority of the Foreign Secretary himself, and I hope very much that it will be found possible to house it in the same building. That may not sound a very important point, but this question of what I may call physical propinquity is really very important from the point of view of efficiency.
    The noble Viscount mentioned the excellent work done by the Department of Overseas Trade, and I entirely agree with him. When I was in Rome I had on my staff a very able member of that Department; I do not think anybody could have wished for a better adviser, and he was my Commercial Counseller.
    818
    I can speak very highly of his work. That Department, however, has one very great disadvantage: it has to serve, as Lord Tyrrell put it the other day, two masters, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. I do not know whether it loves the one and hates the other, or to which, if so, its love and hatred may be devoted; but I do know that that is not a satisfactory position. More important still, its central organization in London is not such that it can really tender to the Foreign Office the kind of advice on politico-economic questions which is essential if the Foreign Secretary is adequately to perform his very onerous task.
    I suggest, therefore, that the statements made by the noble Earl in the debate on March 9 last were not only satisfactory but in accordance with the desires already expressed by your Lordships and also, as far as I can gauge, not in opposition to any views expressed in another place. I yield to none in the view that these questions of Government organization should be fully discussed and controlled by Parliament; but in this case it does not seem to me, in view of the debates which have taken place both here and in another place, that such a procedure as the issue of a White Paper is really called for or required.
    LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to be present at the debate in which the noble Earl announced that he and his Department might possibly be the first casualties after the last shot. I read of that with very great regret, because the noble Earl has always treated us to statements of such clarity and forthrightness that I would rather see him amongst the last than the first to disappear. If I had been present at that debate, I should presumably have spoken before the noble Earl; and in that case, speaking under an evident misapprehension, I should have been anticipating a long and useful life for him and for his Department. I should have anticipated that on a number of grounds, on which I shall detain your Lordships to-day only for a few minutes, but on which I should like to speak frankly.
    We may be within measurable time of the moment when all the worst criminals in the Axis countries will be seeking temporary addresses where their loot has already been deposited, there to recuperate and ultimately to filter back and

    819
    organize Germany's third war. Your Lordships may remember that after the last war Ludendorff made a bee-line for Sweden in blue spectacles; and this time there will be thousands of such cases. I very much hope that they will receive hospitality nowhere; but the records of some of the neutral countries are not such as to give us any absolute guarantee. If these people do filter into neutral countries, I hope that the "vile bodies" will be handed over immediately. If, however, they filter into neutral countries and succeed in staying there, some of us will be in deadly earnest in "winkling them out" again, because we regard this as a matter of European security. For that purpose it may be that we shall need measures of economic suasion or enforcement. I shall certainly be amongst those who will require them.
    I come now to an even more important matter, although it may not be so swift in operation. In the former case we shall have to act quickly, because the cause of justice cannot be protracted. After the last war it was notorious that a number of countries assisted the ex-aggressors to evade the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. That would be another matter of first-class importance, in which many of us again would be in deadly earnest, because this time we do mean disarmament to be a reality. Again we might need the machinery of economic suasion or enforcement, this time in a slightly deferred form, because personally I do not think that such measures of evasion would be attempted until several years after the cessation of hostilities, whereas the matter of the war criminals would be one of a few months. There is a distinction between those categories, but on both of them I should be prepared to take a strong line, and I think that millions of people will take the same view.
    Even if that method is contested by any of your Lordships, there is another very important consideration which I hope will be contested by no one. In a debate on a Motion which I brought before this House in regard to the chemical industry of Germany, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned something which I have long advocated—namely, that it will be necessary to ration the Axis countries very strictly after this war in all imported and important war materials; not only chrome
    820
    and wolfram of evil memory, but a list of things as long as one's arm. That will be necessary because we must at all costs prevent the aggressor countries from laying up war stocks. It is obvious that that policy—and it must be an essential part of our peace policy—would be defeated unless we were also going to ration the satellites and the sympathizers; and that will be an enormous operation, and very complicated and protracted. I should very much like to know exactly how it is contemplated that that should be carried out before I could possibly make up my mind on the subject. It is a very difficult matter indeed and any other thing that we have ever attempted in peace-time—the enforcement of sanctions against Italy, for example—would be a drop in the ocean compared to it.
    Therefore this measure, I think, requires a good deal more consideration than it has received at present. Is it suggested that the Foreign Office should be in charge of the execution of these measures of economic suasion or enforcement? Hitherto the Foreign Office has not been an administrative Department, and I do not think that you turn it into an administrative Department by attaching to it an Economic Section detached from the Ministry of Economic Warfare. Surely an Intelligence Department can advise you, say, as to what the ration should be. It could also advise you as to how the rationing might be enforced, and it could also inform you as to who was breaking the ration. Is it supposed that it should be the enforcing Department, the executive Department as well? If not, what exactly is proposed? For all those reasons I would like to suggest that before parting with the actual machinery we should be given a good look-see at what is going to take its place, and that that should be in the nature of an offer, and not of a decision.
    LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, you have just had the edifying spectacle of two eminent members of the Foreign Service completely differing from each other. The noble Earl on my right considers that the Ministry of Economic Warfare and all its work should be turned over to the Foreign Office and that the Foreign Office should rule the economic world in future. The noble Lord who has just spoken takes the opposite point of view, and he makes no secret of the

    821
    fact that he would not trust the Foreign Office a yard. I rise to support very briefly the proposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I was present at the debar e and played a small part in it, and I was a little disturbed at what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, but Lord. Elibank was quicker in the uptake than I was, and saw the full implications of what was said sooner than I did. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, told us in effect that when there is an Armistice with Germany terminating hostilities the whole of the Pacific side of economic warfare will be handed over to the Americans holus-bolus. That is in effect what he said. I will quote it if necessary. In fact, he went so far as to suggest that it was the American Navy which was fighting the war in the Pacific, assisted by the British Navy. Never did I expect such words to be used in your Lordships' House.
    THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): No, I did not say so.
    LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, I have got it here. The noble Earl said:
    "In the case of Japan it is the American Fleet, now assisted by the British Fleet, that is enforcing the blockade and the complication of negotiations with neutrals really does not come in."
    As the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has pointed out, we have immense interests in Asia and the Pacific. Are we really proposing to abandon the conduct of the whole of our economic warfare against Japan to our American Allies because the American Fleet happens at the moment to be predominant in the Pacific? That is an extraordinary statement to make, and it is unfortunate in this respect. Our ill-wishers in the United States are continually harping on the theme that when the war in Europe is over we shall not be 100 per cent. in the war in the Pacific. We shall have to be, and we shall be, 100 per cent. in the war in the Pacific. Statements like this from the noble Earl will be seized upon by the Anti-British Press in the United States, which will say, "There you are. The Americans are again to be left holding the baby. Just what we told you." Those statements should not be made in your Lordships' House, and if it is the suggestion that the economic side of the war in the Pacific should be handed over to the
    822
    Americans, with a little assistance from our War Intelligence Department and a little assistance from the Royal Navy, then I think that should be corrected at once. It is a very dangerous statement indeed.
    I had the great pleasure of spending many happy years in another place with the noble Earl, and again and again, both as Minister and as private member, his lovable impetuosity led him into making rash statements. To my great delight he used occasionally to bring down on him the wrath of his own political leader and Prime Minister. I feared that when he was elevated to your Lordships' House that impetuosity had been curbed. Personally I am delighted it has not. We had an example of it in the debate last Tuesday, and I think we are greatly indebted to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to the implications of what was said. In that debate I was speaking for my noble friends here, and both Lord Nathan and myself felt that the suggestion that the Ministry of Economic Warfare should be wound up at the earliest possible moment and a part of it handed over to the Foreign Office was dangerous, and when I spoke I entered a caveat. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has reinforced that to-day.
    Speaking for my noble friends on these Benches, I have to say we consider that, far from winding up the Ministry of Economic Warfare, we should strengthen it after the Armistice with Germany, and that it will have a most useful part to play in the post-war settlement. You have a machinery in operation that has been successful, and to destroy it now merely for the purpose of saying that you were winding up superfluous Ministries, and getting the plaudits of those who complain about the growth of bureaucracy, would be a mistake. For these reasons I think we ought to have a White Paper and know where we are, and if the noble Viscount goes to a Division I shall go with him.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I welcome the debate that the noble Viscount has inaugurated, because it is undesirable that there should be misapprehension on this point, and the speech of the noble Viscount and this debate give me an opportunity of clarifying matters which appear to be obscure. I am afraid the noble Viscount has read

    823
    a great deal more into my speech than is there, and the scope of my announcement was not so portentous as he appears to infer. The noble Viscount made some complaint that I had alluded to the subject at all, but I do not think I should have been treating your Lordships' House with candour if I had not, because the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who inaugurated the debate, had pressed me on the subject of the future of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. Therefore, I felt it was only right and proper that I should inform your Lordships of the attitude of the Government in the matter. Then the noble Viscount seemed to assume that a great constitutional change had been brought about by the Foreign Secretary and myself in what he calls a hole-and-corner manner, without any Cabinet sanction. I can assure him that is not the case, and in fact on looking at my speech I found that in my reply I pointed out that this had not only been very carefully considered in the Departments concerned but also by an Inter-Departmental Committee as well. A change of this sort, of course, would not be made without the consent of the Government as a whole.
    The change is not nearly so important and far-reaching as the noble Viscount seems to think. In my speech of which he made complaint I was addressing myself to two points. The first one was, should the Ministry of Economic Warfare continue in whole or in part after the war; and, if the view of the Government is that it should not continue as a whole, the second question which arose was, with what Government Department should what is left be associated. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion, and Lord Vansittart in a characteristically interesting speech, argued that the Ministry of Economic Warfare should continue as a whole after the war, and that was also the view of Lord Strabolgi.
    Lord Vansittart gave three reasons why the Ministry should continue. The first was in order to "winkle out" the German criminals from neutral countries to which they had fled; the second was to prevent evasion of the rearmament clauses of the Peace Treaty by Germany; and the third was in order to ration ex-enemy countries in all commodities important in war-time, and not only them but
    824
    also their satellites and sympathizers. I do not know exactly what countries he includes in that list, but I gather that the noble Lord contemplates continuing something very much in the nature of a blockade indefinitely—until, at any rate, human nature is so reformed that the danger of war has been removed. When it comes to "winkling out" German criminals, I can assure the noble Lord that no one will be keener to support his attitude than myself, and I think the great majority of your Lordship's House, if not all, would take the same view. The same is true of any evasion of rearmament clauses; but I do not think it is necessary to maintain a Ministry specially for these two purposes.
    When I expressed the view that the Ministry of Economic Warfare should disappear after the Armistice with Germany, I did not mean that several months might not elapse. The actual date no one can foresee. I would certainly agree that, as long as there was any useful work that the Ministry as a whole could properly do, it ought to be continued. It is impossible at this juncture to say when the precise moment of the change should be. Subject to that reservation, I do not sec how either of these two operations would necessitate the continuance of the Ministry in its present form. With regard to the perpetual rationing of ex-enemy countries, that is a very big question, but again I do not think that would necessitate a separate Government Department to supervise, if indeed it formed part of the peace policy; I am not prejudicing that question at all. If it did form part of the peace policy, if the noble Lord's views were accepted, it would not require a separate Government Department or the machinery of the blockade to carry it into effect, if indeed it could be carried into effect.
    Then the noble Viscount who moved and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, both urged that the Ministry of Economic Warfare would be required to enforce the blockade against Japan. I feel that both these noble Lords have rather misconceived the problem, and it is no doubt my fault if I did not make it plain on the last occasion. As I told your Lordships, the Ministry has two halves—one concerned with the administration of the blockade, and the other, the Enemy Branch, with all this

    825
    economic intelligence. The administration of the blockade in Europe is a very different matter from the administration of the blockade against Japan—primarily for this reason, and I apologize to noble Lords if I did not make this clear: that Japan is an island and Germany is not.
    What are the principal tasks of the Ministry of Economic Warfare in administering the blockade against Germany? Negotiations with Spain and Portugal about wolfram, negotiations with Turkey about chrome, negotiations with Sweden about baa-bearings, and with Switzerland about precision tools; the endless negotiations about a hundred and one different materials and commodities which neutral countries contiguous to Germany are in a position to supply to Germany and which we, as Germany's enemies, have got by the means open to us to induce these neutral countries not to supply to Germany. That is the blockade problem in Europe in a nutshell. That problem really dose not arise, or hardly arises, in the case of Japan. It is an infinitely simpler problem. It is the Fleet that is blockading Japan. Lord Strabolgi took exception to the reference I made to the American Fleet, bur that was merely a reference to the fact that the great bulk of the American Fleet throughout this war has been in the Pacific, and that the American Fleet in the Pacific is at the present time stronger than the British Fleet in the Pacific. I was merely alluding to that fact, of which everybody is well aware. Everybody knows, of course, that the moment the war in Europe is over the entire British Fleet will be alongside the American Fleet in continuing the war against Japan. I am sure the noble Lord would not like to suggest I had said anything to the contrary. Therefore the question is simply, is the continuance—and that was the only point I was discussing last week—of a separate Ministry necessary to conduct the blockade against Japan? In my view it is not. I do not think there is work for a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary and a separate Ministry for that.
    Here I venture to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who, being a good Socialist, would no doubt like to see more Ministries controlling the whole population of these islands from the cradle to the grave and seeing that they behave themselves every moment of their lives.
    826
    I am one of those people who believe in the liberty of the subject and I think the number of Government Departments should be the minimum compatible with efficiency. You do not necessarily get greater efficiency by having more Government Departments. It is quite easy to manufacture work and if you put enough able people to do it, they can keep themselves well occupied, and a great many other people also, by writing letters to each other. That is a danger which, I suggest, it is incumbent on all Governments to guard against, and if the work can be done efficiently by a smaller number of Departments then that change should be made. That is my view and that is the view I submit with great respect to your Lordships' House. I do not think we should be justified in spending the taxpayers' money on maintaining a Ministry that was not absolutely necessary.
    If, then, the Ministry of Economic Warfare has to be shut down, the question arises whether it should all be shut down. I said to your Lordships last week that indeed it ought not, because of the Enemy Branch which is concerned in the collection, classification, arrangement and appraisement of economic information. That work in my view would be of permanent value to the governmental machine. I announced therefore that it had been arranged that control of that branch should be transferred to the Foreign Office. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion very strongly disagreed with two features of that decision. In the first place he took exception to the statement which he quoted from my speech that matters which this branch deals with should be the business of the Foreign Office—economic disarmament and economic control of Germany; reparations, the economic effects of frontier rectification, the rehabilitation of occupied territories, the development of economic sources of supply to allow Europe to recuperate. I said those were matters on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers will need expert advice in the months immediately succeeding the Armistice. Does the noble Viscount think that the Peace Treaty can be well drafted if these considerations are not borne in mind and if the people who draft the treaties have not good advice on these subjects?

    827
    The reason why the Enemy Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare has now become the Enemy Branch of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Economic Warfare is that the Foreign Secretary is, quite rightly, even now considering the lines on which the various Peace Treaties that we shall have to make after the defeat of our enemies, will have to be drawn up, and in considering those matters these questions all have to be regarded. I never said that the Foreign Office was going to administer any particular one of those subjects. What I said was that the Foreign Secretary would need expert advice upon them, and he will need expert advice upon them because it falls to the Foreign Secretary, with our Allies, to negotiate the treaties of peace and to dictate them to the enemy.
    VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt my noble friend just for a moment? Who will administer them? If the Foreign Office is only to be advised upon them, who are to be administrators of those very important matters?
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There my noble friend is considerably widening the scope of the debate. I was endeavouring last week to deal with the future of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, and I explained to your Lordships some reasons why the Enemy Branch was being transferred to the Foreign Office. One reason is that the Foreign Secretary has decided that he requires expert advice on these economic matters and we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, very strong support for that view. The second point to which my noble friend Lord Elibank takes great exception is what he has conceived to be an attack on the Department of Overseas Trade. I never mentioned the Department of Overseas Trade and nothing I have said has had any reference to the Department of Overseas Trade. If I may say so, I should like to endorse what he said in regard to the splendid work that has been done by the Department of Overseas Trade. But the announcement that I was authorized to make last week had nothing to do with the Department of Overseas Trade and nothing that has been decided in any way affects the responsibilities of the Board of Trade or the Department of Overseas Trade. All that has been decided
    828
    is that certain functions of the Ministry of Economic Warfare which are likely to survive the Ministry shall be allocated to the Foreign Secretary.
    The noble Viscount pressed for publication of a White Paper. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, pointed out, a White Paper already has been published in regard to future developments of the Foreign Office and has been discussed by your Lordships' House. The change that I announced last week is really in conformity with the policy there approved. I cannot answer the noble Viscount's question about the Department of Overseas Trade. I have no official knowledge on that subject at all. If he wishes to raise the question that should be raised as a separate matter. I cannot say whether any re-arrangement of Government offices is going to he proposed after the war other than that which I have already mentioned concerning my own Department. That is a separate matter which the noble Viscount can raise as a separate issue. All that I have endeavoured to inform your Lordships is that in the view of His Majesty's Government the continuance of the Ministry of Economic Warfare for long after the Armistice with Germany will be unnecessary and directly its continuance is found to be unnecessary it will be wound up. The Enemy Branch will continue to serve the Foreign Office.
    The noble Viscount said these things should not be done without Parliamentary authority. I entirely agree with him and it is for that reason that the matter has been brought before Parliament in your Lordships' House at the earliest possible opportunity. If either House of Parliament strongly dissented from the policy then no doubt that would cause His Majesty's Government to reconsider the subject, but I do not think that is likely. I hope your Lordships will be satisfied with the explanation I have given. I do not think there is really in this particular point material for a further White Paper. If larger issues become ripe for discussion or decision that is beyond anything I mentioned the other day.
    VISCOUNT ELIBANK: What are the larger issues to which the noble Earl refers?
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: For instance, whether the Department of Over-

    829
    seas Trade should be continued or not. I have no knowledge on that—it is not my Department—but the noble Viscount spoke about lit. I say that is a different issue and if he wants any information on that subject I suggest that he should put down a question about it at the appropriate time. I was concerned to point out that the decision I announced was really very limited in scope' and I think my noble friend has read a good deal more into it than really exists.
    VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, whilst I agree that my noble friend in his reply has tried to make the best case possible I remain very dissatisfied. In this debate four noble Lords have spoken. One of them, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, supported the Minister and the other three, Lord Vansittart, Lord Strabolgi and myself, spoke in favour of the desire expressed in the Motion that a White Paper should be published in order that we should have full opportunity to consider these matters and have a full debate upon them. I do not think that anything the noble Earl has said to-day has in any way altered the position with regard to the necessity for a White Paper. He has not answered a number of questions which were put to him. He said it would widen the scope of the debate to say who should control all these matters with regard to Germany about which he spoke in his former speech. But widening the scope of the debate was the noble Earl's own first action. The Motion upon which this whole question arose, placed on the Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, contained nothing whatever about the future of the noble Earl's Department. I came to listen to the debate, which I expected would show great praise of the noble Earl's Department and of the way he conducted its operations. I had no intention of speaking until suddenly out of the blue the noble Earl made a disclosure about the future closing down of his Department. If that is not a broadening of the debate I cannot think what is. Therefore I do not think it is fair to ask your Lordships to accept a sort of semi-explanation of what these proposals involve.
    My noble friend Lord Vansittart talked about the maintenance of the Department of Economic Warfare for certain objects which he described and which were really similar objects to those mentioned by my noble friend. He did not mean—obviously
    830
    he could not have meant—that the blockade should continue when the war was over. What he had in view was obviously the maintenance of the pressure that would be necessary on Germany and other countries in order to carry out these objects. Yet we are told that the Ministry of Economic Warfare which has done all these things through its Economic Intelligence Branch is to be closed and the branch handed over to the Foreign Office only as expert advisers to the Foreign Office. In my experience expert advisers to a Department assume that that Department is going to carry out the functions, but the noble Earl suggested by implication that the Department would not carry out the functions. If that is so, why hand *over a very expert section of the Ministry of Economic Warfare to a Department which is not going to carry out the functions instead of to a Department which should carry out the functions?
    The noble Earl suggested that I was quite wrong in my assumption that the Government had not approved of these proposals, because he said—and he re—ferred to a passage which I had nut noticed particularly because I thought it was not worth noticing very much—that an Inter-Departmental Committee had considered these proposals, and they were being adopted. Here we come to a point which raises a great issue. It has been suggested only recently, by a member of the War Cabinet, that the day may come when we may be governed by Orders in Council, because of the congestion of business in another place. This afternoon we are told—and in view of my knowledge of the noble Earl's political record and actions, I am surprised that he should have suggested this—that because an Inter-Departmental Committee has approved of these things we here in this House, and presumably those in the House of Commons, must adhere to them too. I object very strongly to that theory, and I feel so dissatisfied with the reply that we have received this afternoon that I will not withdraw my Motion.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): Do I understand that the noble Lord is ready to agree that his Motion should be negatived by voices?
    VISCOUNT EUBANK: Oh, certainly. I am not withdrawing my Motion.
    On Question, Motion negatived.

  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL [H.L.]
    PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION
    Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
    LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH (CANALS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    Second Report by the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE