Sitting of 7 February 1946

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Earl of Plymouth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (REPEAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee and it may be convenient if I make a statement on that Motion. It will cover a number of points which I think noble Lords raised in the discussion on the Second Reading and a very important matter which I had the opportunity of discussing with noble Lords opposite, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies and with legal advisers and others in regard to the question of Orders which are made under the Bill. I have been asked to make the following statement on that matter.
His Majesty's Government have considered this matter—that is, the laying of Orders—very carefully, and have reached a conclusion which it is hoped will be acceptable to Parliament. The question of laying the actual drafts of Orders in Council gives rise to great difficulties. In the first place, the Orders will be made not only under the powers conferred by Clause 1 of this Bill, but also by virtue of the British Settlements Acts which are applied by Clause 2 and, as respects the Malay States, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. To lay the draft of Orders to be made under those Acts would be contrary to established practice, departure from which would involve constitutional issues.
In the second place, there is a practical difficulty. The action to be taken under
292
this Bill is urgent. The Orders to give effect to the policy outlined in the White Paper must be promulgated as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law, in order that civil administration may be resumed without delay when the local situation permits—because it is at present under military jurisdiction. The Orders will be long, and the drafting will take some time to complete.
For these reasons, His Majesty's Government propose to lay before Parliament a statement setting out their proposals, amplifying the information given in the White Paper and constituting in fact a précis of the material provisions to be contained in the draft Orders. They adopt this course as an exceptional measure in view of the special importance of these Constitutions, but they must not be regarded as thereby establishing a precedent for future cases.
They agree that there is a prima facie ground for criticism of the present procedure whereby very few instruments relating to Colonial Constitutions are subjected to Parliamentary examination before coming into operation, but on consideration the question of modification of this position proves to be one which is very complex. There is great variety among these Colonial Constitutions and the legal provisions under which they are framed, and the peoples in the Colonial Empire will have divergent views on the subject to which due weight must, of course, be given. It would therefore be difficult to devise legislation to fit all cases. In these circumstances the Government must ask the House to give them time to look into the matter. As soon as there is an easing of the present pressure on the limited legal staff in the Colonial Office, the position will be thoroughly explored so that His Majesty's Government may be able to consider whether improvements in the present procedure can be effected.
I may say that we are as anxious as noble Lords are to bring this matter, so far as we can, to such a position that there will be adequate Parliamentary opportunity for discussion before action is taken, and in this particular case the précis which it is proposed to submit and lay before the House before such action is taken will afford such an opportunity in regard to this matter.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Addison.)
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation and the proposals he has made and the undertaking he has given. This matter was raised, as your Lordships will remember, on the Second Reading, by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, who greatly regrets he is unable to be here to-day. He is, I am sorry to say, ill; I hope he will soon be back. A good deal of discussion, as the noble Viscount has said, has taken place upon it. It obviously would be quite impossible to debate what the Government intend to do with regard to Malaya on this Bill or on the White Paper. The Bill itself is merely an enabling Bill. Indeed, the action which is going to be taken, when it is taken, will as I understand it be taken in part under this Bill and in part under a number of other Acts which are prayed in aid when the Order is made—the Foreign Jurisdiction Act and another Act covering the Straits Settlements. Nor would it be possible to debate the matter effectively under the existing White Paper, which is no more than a skeleton outline of the general lines on which the Government hope and intend to proceed. That, obviously, was an unsatisfactory position, and the House, quite rightly, if I may so, did not wish to commit themselves in any way, by passing this Bill, to action to be taken under it, without a firm assurance that as and when the Government was ready, the House would have the fullest opportunity of considering that plan and debating it before action was taken.
That might have been possible in one of two ways. There are many precedents for laying the drafts of Orders in Council—the Government themselves have just done that under the 'Control of Investments Bill, and we often have done it. In a straightforward Order which he who runs may read, that is very often quite a convenient way of doing the business. But here, as I understand it, the Orders must, by reason of the legal position, be extremely complex in their drafting. They may run to 150 or 200 pages, and would, I think, be almost unintelligible, even to those very familiar both with Colonial adminis
294
tration and with the law, and to the majority of us they would be quite unintelligible.
The alternative is to have a full White Paper when the plan is ready in all its detail, which will set out exactly, in simple language, what it is intended to do under this Bill, and under the other Acts under which the Orders will be made, and what will be the effect of the Orders when they are made. That, I think, is a very convenient way of dealing with the matter. The Leader of the House has given us an assurance that we shall have such a full statement, and that we shall have it in full time to digest and to debate, as we shall certainly want to do, before the Orders in Council are made. If that, as I understand, is the position, I believe it will commend itself to all your Lordships as an extremely convenient way of proceeding.
There is only one other matter I would like to mention. We have been dealing hitherto entirely with Malaya. I gather it could not be an Order under this Bill, but when dealing with Sarawak, I presume it would be done under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act or the appropriate Act, but some Order in Council would be made. I do not wish to introduce a debate on Sarawak at this moment, nor am I sure whether the negotiations which are now taking place with regard to that country will be completed in time to be embodied in the While Paper which will be presented dealing with the Constitution and, the future of Malaya, but I should like to have this assurance from the noble Viscount. He will, I am sure, appreciate the great importance, in dealing with this question of Sarawak, of our duty to the people of that country. In the eyes of the world it should be abundantly clear that anything which is done is not only for the benefit of Sarawak, but is carrying the particular consent of the people of Sarawak and those best able to speak for them. I just want to stake out a claim first of all that Sarawak will be treated in the same way as these other Malayan matters, and that we shall not find ourselves committed in respect of Sarawak while we are not committed in respect of Malaya, and that therefore either any proposals with regard to the territory will find their place in the White Paper, or, if they do not, and if the Malayan side of the business is ready

295
before the Sarawak matters are finally disposed of—disposed of in the sense that His Majesty's Government come to a definite conclusion on them—we should have an opportunity of knowing what has been done and what is proposed before any definite and final action is taken with regard to that territory also.
Subject to that proviso, I should like again to express—and I am sure I speak for all my friends—my sincere gratitude to the noble Viscount for the very fair way in which we have been met over a matter which is of deep concern to many of us and of deep interest to the whole British Empire.
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, the statement we have heard to-day from the Leader of the House is one we greatly welcome. It is, I feel sure, one which will help to lessen the tension which exists to-day in Malaya and the anxieties we hear expressed in so many quarters regarding the actual intentions of the Government. I shall await the reactions to it with the keenest interest, because in view of representations which have been reaching us I am alarmed at the situation which has been created. The assurance given that Orders in Council will be laid on the Table, giving ample time for consideration before any legislation is undertaken, is right and reasonable. I would like to endorse the words of my noble friend Viscount Swinton. The present Bill, as he says, is an enabling Bill and we cannot debate it. Therefore, I shall not trespass upon the time of the House, but I would like to say that I am still hopeful that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consider it advisable to follow the suggestion I have made in previous debates, that before determining the final shape of this Malayan Union he will consult previous High Commissioners of the Malay States and former civil servants of standing, who whatever their personal bias may be, will, I know, give their country the benefit of their knowledge and experience. Should their views not accord with the views of those who are the present advisers of the Government, surely it is in the interests of all concerned to find out the reason why.
None of us are infallible. Particularly when dealing with matters concerning the Mahomedan religion is it advisable to
296
consult with those who have lived in Moslem countries. The method of modern inquiry proceeds by way of using the specialist, even though the final decision may not rest with him. If this Malayan Union is not to lead to disorder and interracial strife it must be founded on the cordial acceptance of the Malays and their Rulers. For seventy years Malayan loyalty to Great Britain has been staunch; and it remained unshaken even though we were unable to defend their country from Japan. Such loyalty as this is not to be lightly sacrificed to expediency and diverted into channels which might result in a situation of embittered and lasting hostility. It is for that reason I feel sure that the House will welcome the statement made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that more time must be given before such a vital matter as this is decided. I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having made the statement he has to-day.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, in a few words I wish to support what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Marchwood. I welcome this statement which has been made to-day. It goes a good way towards meeting the view we expressed in former debates, namely, that this question of the Malayan Constitution was being forced forward rather too quickly. I particularly welcome the fact that we are to have laid before us a précis of the Orders in Council so that we may have an opportunity of debating the many questions connected with this matter before the Orders in Council are actually laid before Parliament. I agree that to-day is not a convenient moment to debate these points, but I do wish to impress upon the noble Viscount that representations are being made on certain points which have come to the knowledge of both my noble friend and myself, one of which particularly refers to the question of the control of religious affairs in Malaya. I. want to urge, as I did on a former occasion, that this is one point that should concern the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Government, especially in connexion with this new Constitution. If we can get a settlement which will result in leaving the control of those affairs in the hands

297
of the Sultans, it will go a long way towards alleviating any bitterness or feeling there may be about this Constitution at the moment.
I want to support my noble friend Viscount Marchwood in his suggestion 'that the Government should take into consultation the gentlemen here in this country—they will not accept my proposal that they should be sent out to Malaya to inquire locally into these questions—eminent ex-civil servants and others who understand Malaya and who would be, I am sure, only too pleased to place before the Government all the help that they could give in arranging this difficult matter. Those are the two major points with regard to the general situation which I wish to make.
With regard to the constitution of Singapore, I wish to warn the Government once more that the Colony of Singapore contains over 75 per cent. of Chinese population. The Colony is for Great Britain a strategic base of vital value. It is the strategic base on our lifeline in the East and it is a base over which we cannot afford to lose control in any way whatsoever. I feel certain that both Australia and New Zealand take the same view about it. Therefore I do urge that any Constitution which is to be granted to Singapore should not be on a democratic basis and that Singapore must remain a British Colony if we are to retain our strategic control out in the East. I would conclude by saying once more that I welcome what the Government have done in this matter; I believe they are sincere in their desire to obtain the best for Malaya and I feel that if we can get all these points satisfactorily settled they have probably got the best basis for a new Constitution in Malaya which can be found.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I have read with very great interest the Bill now before the House, and I think this is the first time that the British Parliament has endeavoured to make a Constitution by Order in Council. I recall debates when matters of this kind were discussed in the House of Commons in the days of Lord John Russell. Difficulties were then arising between the residents of Upper and Lower Canada, and it was not by Order in Council that the Government dealt with the situation,
298
but by legislation after full debate. We are in fact conferring upon the Governor in Council legislative powers and the conferring of such powers has always been looked upon since the War of Independence in 1775 with great suspicion. It has always caused difficulty because the people affected in the area concerned have had no opportunity of being heard. If, as you say, we are looking forward to the day when these Colonies will become self-governing we shall have to keep in mind the fact that Constitution has ever been conferred upon a Dominion by this Parliament that was not created by the residents of the Dominion concerned. For instance, the Canadian Constitution was settled by the Quebec Resolutions. It was sent here and the British North America Act was passed. The same may be said with respect to South Africa, and the discussions which took place in that connexion are matters of record. The Legislatures were consulted and the people framed their own Constitutions. The same may be said also with respect to Australia, and the long discussions which took place indicate how important it is that the people who are to be governed should themselves devise the form of their own Constitution. That, of course, is not possible with respect to new Colonies which have not yet become able to deal with the matter through the creation of representative institutions, which are so important to enable it to be properly done.
I should like to make to your Lordships a practical suggestion namely, that the Order in Council, however much it may be discussed here, should be easily accessible—it might be primed in the next issue of the Statutes of the country as an Order in Council having the effect of law. If that could be done it would be of great assistance to many people, not excluding the legal profession. It should be possible for the Order in Council to be part of the Statutes of the Realm so that it may be available to anyone desiring to see the conditions in which a particular territory is governed.
Furthermore, inasmuch as we are aiming at representative institutions which will determine the character of legislation and the Constitution it might be well to place a limitation upon the duration of that Statute. That has been done and could be done, and in view of the Malayan situation, of which I know so little, it

299
might be desirable for a long period to be laid down or for some expression in indefinite language to the effect that this was of a temporary character.
I am making these observations because I have seen great difficulties arise from an endeavour to deal with constitutional matters by an Order in Council. The conferring of legislative powers on His Majesty's Government is something to be done with the utmost care because it means entrusting to the Executive a power which belongs to Parliament. I am happy that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has promised to submit for the consideration of the House a general statement of what the Constitution is to be. But I again remind your Lordships that the important consideration is not what we when we sit at Westminster think—alas, we have learnt too readily and at too great a cost just what that means—but that it should have at least the consideration and if possible the complete approval of the people affected by it. I apologize for trespassing in a debate which affects a country about which I know so little, but the principle involved is of the utmost importance and may affect, as indeed it has in times past, the very life of the Empire itself.
4.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, before I deal with the particular points which have been raised I should like to say to the noble Viscount who has just sat down that I am afraid he must have misunderstood the position a little. With regard to our Colonies in various forms of development, for a long time past under the Royal Prerogative various Orders have been made—in fact, thousands of them have been made. What we have sought to do is to institute some departure from that practice in this respect and I am glad that the proposal has commended itself to your Lordships. We are proposing to give in this case a précis of the Orders for the House to discuss. As for the constitutional practice, of course, it would be inconceivable that any practice should be adopted such as the noble Viscount deprecated.
With regard to the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, concerning Sarawak, negotiations are proceeding
300
and proposals have been already made by the Rajah to His Majesty's Government. I can assure the House that it will be fully informed as soon as possible, and there is nothing so far as I know in contemplation on which we shall not be glad to give the fullest information to the House.
There was one question I was asked in the Second Reading debate and to which I promised to reply, but which I have hitherto overlooked, namely, as to the right of the Japanese in respect of citizenship. The noble Viscount, Lord March-wood, referred to that and asked if the Japanese would be entitled to citizenship by birth or under the ten years' qualification. The proposal is that the Japanese would be debarred for a long time to come. It is not proposed to extend these opportunities to the Japanese. But Japanese in future will only be able to become Malayan citizens after each case has been exhaustively checked and dealt with by the Malayan authorities. No question affecting them could possibly arise for a long time to come. They will not be admitted, as I have said, either by reason of birth, or ten years' residential qualifications.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that ten years include the period of the war?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, it must be ten years' residence exclusive of the war period.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that mean that a Japanese who has been resident there since, say, 1930–1931 would be eligible?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No; that is what I was trying to explain. Such people would not be eligible. A Japanese would not be entitled to that opportunity of acquiring citizenship at all.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is not the position this—that no Japanese could obtain Malayan citizenship as a right? He would only, at some distant time in the future, become a Malayan citizen by act of naturalization, over which the Government will retain full control.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is quite right. The noble Viscount has expressed it more clearly than I have done, and I thank him. That is entirely right, and I am sure noble Lords will be in agree-

301
ment with it. May I say in reply to the noble Viscounts Lord Marchwood and Lord Elibank, that we are as solicitous as they are that the rights of rulers with regard to the Mohammedan religion should be fully safeguarded. They ought to be so safeguarded, and I think that the relevant provisions adequately provide for that. As the noble Viscounts are aware, every representation that is being made is being most carefully considered, for we wish loyally to carry out our undertaking. There need be no misgivings at all on that score.
My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies is anxious to consult with and enlist the help of those who are able to assist him with their advice, and he will not hesitate to take every opportunity of securing their co-operation. As to the importance of that, I fully share the views of the noble Lords who have spoken. And let us hope that no disaster that has occurred in the past can ever conceivably be repeated in the future.
On, Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Division of Straits Settlements.
1.—(1) On such day as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (hereinafter referred to as" the appointed day") the' Straits Settlements Act, 1866, shall be hereby repealed, and the Straits 'Settlements (that is to say, the settlements and dependencies mentioned in the Schedule to this Act) shall cease to be a single colony.
(2) On and after the appointed day the said settlements and dependencies shall be divided into such territories as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct, and those territories shall be governed, either singly or in conjunction with such other territories (whether falling within the Schedule to this Act or not) as may be specified in the Order. …
4.32 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM LORD ALTRINCHAM moved, in subsection (2), after the words "other territories," to leave out "whether falling within the Schedule to this Act or not," and to insert "mentioned in the Schedule." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, but before doing so may I endorse the expressions of satisfaction which have fallen from the lips of my noble friend Viscount Swinton as to the arrangement which has been described
302
to us in the statement made at the beginning of the proceedings of the House to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I-entirely agree with him that what the Government are doing in this case is an improvement on precedent—it is an improvement on many hundreds of precedents. It is, indeed, a great improvement, and certainly not, in any way, a deterioration from precedent. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for giving this House the fullest opportunity for discussing the future Constitution of the Malayan Union, and for ascertaining, and, if necessary, bringing to notice, the views of the Rulers and the peoples of these settlements.
May I add one other point? It is, I think, most important, and I am sure the noble Viscount as Secretary of State for the Dominions will agree, that the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand should be marching with us step by step in all we do in the Malayan Union. They have played a great part in the Pacific War, and they must be deeply interested in the future of Malaya as a whole—not only in the future of Singapore. I am sure that we can rely upon the Government to see not only that they are fully informed of what is being done but that it has their complete approval before we are committed to it.
Now I come to the Amendment. This is not a hostile Amendment in any sense. I have pat it down for the purpose of extracting, as I hope I shall, some information from the Government, and also for the purpose of calling attention to what is, I think, a serious flaw in the drafting of this Bill—a flaw which ought to be brought to your Lordships' notice. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will note that the title sets out that it is a measure "to repeal the Straits Settlements Act, 1866, and to make further provision for the government of the territories heretofore known as the Straits Settlements." I think that, certainly in the spirit if not in the letter, this Bill is making provision for the government of territories far beyond the existing Straits Settlements. It is making provision for the government of all the States of the future Malayan Union, and the Orders in Council which are made to do that will be made under this Bill. Actually, therefore, the powers the Government are taking seem to me to be going beyond what is covered by the title of the Bill. I do not

303
know whether that is really correct. I am aware that there is an argument to the contrary. It seems to me that inasmuch as Orders in Council that are going to be made under this Bill will apply to territories not yet covered in this way, but which will be covered when these territories come under British sovereignty, then those Orders in Council will be made under this Bill. If that is the position, I think it might be desirable that the title should be amended so as to cover the wider purpose which seems to me to be contained in the Bill.
Apart from that, the powers taken in Clause 1 seem to me to go beyond the powers required for the purpose of the Government in presenting the Bill. After all, this Bill, taking it at its widest, is designed to set up the Malayan Union. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 (2) you will see that the Orders in Council may deal with territories not included in the Schedule to this Bill, and that the various things that may be done in regard to the future Government of these territories are very wide under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). So far as I understand, it may be possible under this Bill not merely to constitute the Malayan Union, and to set up a new system of government for it, but to annex the Malayan Union to Burma, to the Indian Empire, or, indeed, to the United Kingdom, supposing the Governments of those places made no objection to the idea. I think the operation of this clause should be limited to the territories with which it is really proposed to deal. I am not criticizing the draftsmen in this respect. They are, at all times, terribly overworked, and I imagine that they are a great deal more overworked at the present time than ever before. I would be the last person to criticize them, but the fact that they are overworked calls for extra vigilance on the part of your Lordships' House. After all, the old system of arranging that when you needed an inch you would make quite sure of taking an ell is not a good thing in drafting Bills of this kind, more especially when it is not an ell which you are dealing with but almost the whole earth. That is what the language of this Bill covers in its present form. I do not propose to press my Amendment because, as is made quite clear in the White Paper,
304
other territories will come into this which would be excluded if my Amendment were passed. I do not propose therefore to press it, but I ask that in some way the Government should find it possible to limit the scope of this Act to the territories it is really intended to cover by some such phrase as "the territories or those bordering on the South China Seas" or in language which restricts these powers in some way. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a matter really requiring attention. This is a Bill originating in your Lordships' House and I think your Lordships will agree that it should go from the House bearing that hallmark of clear design and scrupulous workmanship which befits your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("whether falling within the Schedule to this Act or not") and insert ("mentioned in the Schedule.")—(Lord Altrincham.)
4.38 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: I venture to say that my own study of this Bill has led me to somewhat different conclusions from that rather terrifying prospect that the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has held out to your Lordships. The Bill refers in terms only to certain territories, territories, that is, which were originally provided for by the Straits Settlements Act of 1866, and the powers which it confers of passing Orders in Council can surely refer only to such territories. If reference is also made in the Bill to other territories it is only because it is desired that the powers of making Orders for these original territories mentioned in the Act of 1866, and repeated in the present Schedule, shall be exercised in conjunction with powers to be exercised elsewhere and under other Orders. In other words, that we shall be able to govern these territories in conjunction with other territories, but the Bill does not therefore confer any powers of passing Orders in Council regarding those other territories. They must come from a different source. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that he does not intend to press his exact Amendment, because I think it would lead to certain terminological difficulties. If his Amendment passes, the Bill would run as follows: That these territories "shall be governed either singly or in conjunction with such territories as are mentioned in the Schedule," but the territories mentioned in the Schedule are not "other"

305
territories. They are the original territories mentioned in the Act of 1866. Therefore, if you translate this into other terms, it would merely amount to saying that these original territories shall be governed either singly or in conjunction with these original territories.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add a word on the construction of this Bill? It is not really to my mind in a very satisfactory form so far as it relates to the points Lord Altrincham and my noble friend have raised. It is rather a complex matter. Your Lordships will know that the White Paper deals with three different classes of territory. The first is the Colony of the Straits Settlements—Singapore, Penang, Malacca and so on—and as these are part of the British Dominions there is, of course, no difficulty in dealing with the matter. We know what we are dealing with. There is a second class, the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang; and thirdly the unfederated Malay States of Johore, Kedah, Trengganu, Kelantan and Perlis. As has been pointed out in the White Paper, and as I know from an intimate connexion with one of those territories, namely, that of Kelantan, none of he territories mentioned in the second or third classes are part of His Majesty's Dominions at the present time at all. We exercise advisory powers and we have entered into agreements with those States, but the Colonial Office has often, in the clearest possible way, disclaimed any right of sovereignty over them at all.
The position is this. It has been taken—whether rightly or wrongly I do not know, but it has been accepted as a fact in Malaya—that this Bill is intended to deal not only with the Colony of the Straits Settlements, but also with these other two classes, the Federated and unfederated States of Malaya which are mentioned in the White Paper. There has been some indignation expressed in some of those districts or territories in reference to the suggestion that has been made that there should be a cession of them to the British Government and that they should become part of the territories of the Crown. I am very anxious to find what this Bill is really dealing with. I am not satisfied with the view that it is not intended by the words in parenthesis to include the unfederated Malay States and the Federated Malay States, the second and third
306
classes mentioned in the White Paper. We have heard a good cleat about the White Paper and the intention to carry it into effect, and I should be a little surprised, though at the same time I should be rather relieved, if we hear on behalf of the Government that really they are only dealing with the Straits Settlements, namely, part of the Colonial Dominions of the Crown. If that is so, we know where we are and these other territories not yet part of the sovereignty of the Crown can be left to be dealt with at some other time.
I would add this, which might perhaps clear the ground in he minds of some people, that the words referring to other territories beyond those mentioned in the Schedule which are territories which may be specified in the Order whether falling within the Schedule to this Act or not, are taken as a matter of law prima facie to refer only to territories which are part of the sovereignty of the King. It is well settled that unless there are distinctly words to the contrary, a Statute expressed in general words with reference to something to be done with regard to territories has to be interpreted, as far as the language permits, as not to be inconsistent with the comity of nations or the established rules of international law, which of course, includes the rule that you cannot legislate for foreign territories. So prima facie the words—I am speaking as a lawyer—do not extend at the present time to the Federated or the unfederated Malay Stales. What I am really anxious about is that His Majesty's Government should make this Bill clear. It is really a very important measure to people out there, and to a number of people in this country who have interests of great value out there, and so it is very important that there shall be no doubt as to what it really means. It is only a very slight alteration of language which is necessary for that purpose. At present, I repeat quite frankly, I do not know whether it is intended to have any reference to the Federated or the unfederated States of Malaya.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to prolong the debate for a moment, but I must ask leave to intervene on the original point raised by Lord Altrineham, to which my noble friend Lord Hailey referred. Naturally, anything which Lord Hailey says

307
with regard to matters of which he has great experience carries much weight with your Lordships. For myself, merely as a matter of construction, I have not the slightest doubt in the world that the words to which, Lord Altrincham referred are words which would cover the case which he put. It may be a very unlikely case. It is quite a separate point from the point made by my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham. I am separating them. I am anxious to say, for what it may be worth, that my own reading of these words is the reading which Lord Altrincham indicated. With the greatest respect, I do not think the answer given by Lord Hailey is any answer at all.
May I be allowed to state what the words are? As the Bill runs, it provides that the territories referred to shall be governed, either singly or in conjunction with such other territories (whether falling within the Schedule to this Act or not) as may be specified in the Order. Lord Altrincham's illustration is a perfectly good illustration, although it may be unlikely, as he said. He said, let us suppose someone proposed to provide that Singapore should be governed in conjunction with Burma—that was his illustration—can there be any doubt that other territories, whether falling within the Schedule of this Act or not, might not include Burma? Surely it is so, and therefore Lord Altrincham's point was a perfectly good point, although the illustration was improbable. I understood him to be considering this point: Is not this Bill by its form going further than anybody intends, because it does in fact purport to authorize an Order in Council which would couple up together as bed fellows the territory that is dealt with here which is a portion of the old Straits Settlements, which are now going to be broken up and re-formed, and actually says that such territory may be governed in conjunction with any territory.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Under British sovereignty.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I would entirely agree with Viscount Maugham It means territory under British sovereignty, any territory which is under British sovereignty. Nobody intends that. Therefore I humbly submit to the House that the present text of the Bill is rather unfortunately drawn.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is hardly for me—
VISCOUNT SIMON: May we hear what the Lord Chancellor has to say? He is sitting next to you.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): We have discussed it together.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am aware of the close support that is available for me to receive. I do not, of course, pretend to enter into legal arguments with the gladiators who have contributed to our discussion, but I do think, as a matter of fact, that the animadversions upon the draftsmen and the necessity of these words are not altogether fully warranted. I know that the draftsmen have a lot to do in these days, and what the noble Lord said represents the truth in that respect, but at the same time I cannot see that they have done anything wrong here, because it is proposed, as noble Lords are aware, that some of the territories mentioned in this Schedule, for instance Singapore, will be governed singly, or with certain attachments, and that Malacca and others will become part of the Malayan Union, so that it would be necessary to provide for government either singly or in conjunction with such other territories as may be mentioned in the Schedule. This Act does not cover, as the noble and learned Lord said, the non-federated and Federated Malay States, which are dealt with under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts now on the Statute Book and which will require Orders under those Acts, and therefore it seems to me to be absolutely necessary that these words should be in.
May I also say with regard to the somewhat imaginative illustration with which the noble Lord has provided us and to which the noble and learned Viscount opposite gave his great support, that it would, I suppose, be conceivable. If it were not for the provisions of this Bill, somebody or other might put something extraordinary into an Order. But I want to point out to your Lordships that it would be specified in the Order and that Order would come before your Lordships, and, so far as doing anything outside the general intention and purpose of this Act is concerned, that clearly would be restrained by the necessity of its being specified in the Order and subject to your

309
Lordships' criticisms. As to the necessity of these words here, it seems to me you must have words of this kind. Otherwise you cannot carry out the readjustment and the consolidation of the boundaries of these territories. That is inseparable from the scheme itself.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount opposite, but I am afraid I am not in the least convinced by any argument which he adduces. Indeed, his argument seemed to me to defeat itself. As far as I understand, what is actually going to happen is this, that other territories outside the present Straits Settlements, probably most of the Federated and unfederated Malay States, will be brought within British jurisdiction under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. When that has taken place they can no longer be dealt with under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act and I understand that Orders in Council will then have to be made with regard to those territories under this Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. Is that correct? That is the point we want to be clear upon, because if that is not the case, then I see no necessity whatever for going beyond the Schedule of this Bill. I thought the argument for going beyond the Schedule of this Bill was that you had to deal with territories that cannot at present be put into the Schedule of this Bill, because they have got to be dealt with under another Act. If that is the case, how can it be said it is not under this Bill that you are going to deal with these territories once they come under British jurisdiction? Perhaps the Lord Chancellor could deal with the point.
4.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try. May I say in the first place, so far as the draftsmanship is concerned, that that is a very interesting point. I myself have given a great deal of consideration to the drafting of this Bill, and, if anybody is to blame, it is not the draftsman, it is I. This is, I think, almost without precedent. We are doing a very odd thing here. The Straits Settlements, as your Lordships know, were originally part of the possessions of the East India Company and were dealt with by Statute. They were taken away from the East India Company. We cannot possibly deal with the Straits Settlements except by
310
Statute, and equally by this Statute we cannot, and are not purporting to, deal with anything except the Straits Settlements.
Let me go on. We come to the Federated and unfederated Malay States, which are not British Possessions, and the only way we can legislate for them is under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. Therefore, when you come to make an Order in Council, the Order in Council will have two parent. One will be this Bill which will apply to the Straits Settlements part of it. The other will be the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, which will apply to the Federated and unfederated Malay States. But although there will be two parents to the Order in Council, of course it is a fact that that part of the validity of the Order in Council so far as the Straits Settlements are concerned, will be derived from this Bill. The validity of the rest will derive from the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. Now I think the noble Lord has a point, and where I agree with him is this. Burma is not a very happy illustration, because it is now governed by an Act of Parliament. Take some other illustration.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: British' North Borneo.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We might have limited these words "whether falling within this Schedule or not" to territories that do, or do not. We have not done that. But I really do not think that is a matter of moment. Nothing that is done under this Bill can ever relate to any territory except the Straits Settlements as defined in the Schedule to this Bill. I hope that is plain. The Federated and unfederated Malay States can never be affected by the Bill; they must be affected by an Order in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. By making an Order in Council which derives from those sources, we shall be able to deal with these territories.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I apologize for returning to the charge, but the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has made things more difficult. He has told me that it is no intended to issue Orders in Council under this Bill dealing with other than the Straits Settlements. I understood him clearly in that respect. In that case, why, in the language of

311
Clause 1, is it necessary to refer to territories outside the Schedule? Limit this Bill to what you intend to do under it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is because you contemplate, in your Order in Council, dealing as one entity with the Straits Settlements and something which is not the Straits Settlements. You contemplate having one union, part of which is to-day the Straits Settlements, and part of which is not even a British possession. Therefore you have to have the two sources. But as you are dealing here with these Straits Settlements, as a matter of legislation, you must indicate in your Order in Council that you may in future deal with the Straits Settlements in conjunction with some other territory.
LORD HARLECH: May I be clear on one point in this connexion? Do I understand you to say that this Act cannot apply to any territory outside the existing Straits Settlements as defined in the Schedule here, which includes, of course, one island off the coast of Borneo? What is to be the position of British North Borneo, which has always been governed from Singapore? The Governor there is British Agent for Borneo. It is now a Chartered Company. If that comes to an end, it was always contemplated that it would be a Straits Settlement. I understand negotiations are practically complete for Sarawak becoming British territory. It has been a Malay State, and not even a protected State. Will that not automatically become a Straits Settlement, or is it this Act which is going to define what is a Straits Settlement—the Schedule of this Act?
We must remember that in history there has been one Governor who called himself Governor of the Straits Settlements, High Commissioner for the Malay States (which included States in Borneo and the Malay Peninsula, some Federated, and some not federated) and British Agent for Borneo. That was his title of appointment. That function, I understand, is to be entrusted to a new Governor-General under whom there are to be two Governors, one for the island of Singapore with possibly some of the other islands in the Schedule, and another Governor of the Malay Union which is to take part of the Straits Settlements. What I want to be very clear about is whether you still have your legis
312
lative set-up complete—namely, that you have power to deal not only with the existing Straits Settlements, as defined in the Schedule to this Bill, and the Federated and unfederated Malay States of the Peninsula, but with the whole of the area which hitherto has been under the jurisdiction of the Governor in Singapore, and possibly the territory of Sarawak which is now, apparently for the first time, to become a British possession.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may answer that, I have tried to make it quite plain that under this Bill you will never be able to deal with anything except the Straits Settlements—the existing Straits Settlements as defined in the Schedule—but you will be able to deal with them in conjunction with other territories. Your right to deal with other territories you obtain from the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. Sarawak would obviously be under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. You must get it from some other source; you cannot get it from this Bill except in regard to the Straits Settlements.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I will not press my Amendment, but it is quite clear that the title of this Bill does not cover the purpose of this Bill, since the purpose of this Bill is not only to make a Constitution for the Straits Settlements but to make it possible to unite the Straits Settlements with other territories in that area. In spite of what the Lord Chancellor has said, with great respect to his learning and his infinitely greater legal knowledge, I still feel unconvinced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like an opportunity of convincing the noble Lord privately after this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WARTIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Enforcement after end of war period of building laws and planning control.
1.—(1) Where during the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and ending with' the commencement of this Act (in this Act referred to as the "war period") works on land have been carried out which do not comply with a building law, any period of time limiting the taking of steps for enforcing the law shall be calculated without regard to time elapsing during the war period.
5.10 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"or to time elapsing after the end of that period during which, notwithstanding the provisions of the next following subsection, the building law is unenforceable by reason of the subsistence in or over the land of any interest or right to possession held by or on behalf of the Crown".
The noble Lord said: I do not think there will be any difficulty in persuading your Lordships to accept this Amendment. Clause 1 (1) provides that in calculating the time during which a building law can be enforced, the war period shall be ignored. Clause 1 (2) gives a local authority the right to enforce the ordinary building law against non-conforming works constructed by the Crown during the war period, as defined in Clause 1 (1), if the Crown disposes of the land or grants a long-term tenancy. Building law is, as a rule, enforced by summary proceedings for which there are various time limits. These will, however, all have expired if the Crown disposes of the land more than twelve months after the passing of the Bill. It has been pointed out that in the Bill as it left another place no provision was made for the enforcement of building law in such a contingency, and this Amendment fills that gap. The effect of subsection (1), if the Amendment is accepted, will be that where the Crown disposes of any land at any time after the Bill becomes law the twelve months for summary proceedings will not begin to run until they dispose of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power to sanction war-time non-compliance with building laws or planning control.
2.—(1) At any time before the expiration of five years from the end of the war period, a person entitled to make an application under this subsection with respect to any land may apply to an authority responsible for enforcing any building law or planning control for a determination under this section with respect to works on the land carried out, or a use of the land begun, during the war period.
(2) Upon an application being made to them under the last foregoing subsection the authority shall determine whether the works or use fail to comply with any building laws or planning control which they are responsible for enforcing, and if so shall specify the law or control in question.
(3) Where the authority determine that works or a use fail to comply as aforesaid they shall further determine whether the works or use shall, notwithstanding the failure, he deemed so to comply, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as to the time for which the works or use may be continued, the carrying out of alterations, or other matters, as the authority think expedient.
(8) Where the applicant is aggrieved by a determination given by an authority under this section or by the refusal of an authority to entertain an application made thereunder, or where a person by whom representations have been made as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection is aggrieved by such a determination, he may within the period of twenty-eight days after he has notice of the determination or refusal, or such extended period as the Minister of Health may allow, appeal to that Minister, and that Minister may give, in substitution for the determination, if any, given by the authority, such determination as appears to him to be proper, or, if he is satisfied that the applicant was not a person entitled to make the application, may decide that the application is not to be entertained:
Provided that at any stage of the proceedings on such an appeal to him the Minister may, and shall if so directed by the High Court, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High. Court any question of law arising in connection with the appeal.
(12) On any application or appeal under this Section the applicant, or in the case of an application referred to the Minister of Health for decision or in the case of an appeal to that Minister the applicant or the authority responsible for enforcing the building law or planning control in question, may require the authority or Minister by whom the application or appeal is to be determined to afford him or them an opportunity before the application or appeal is determined of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the authority or the Minister for the purpose.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) In making the determinations referred to in the preceding subsection regard shall be had to all relevant circumstances, and, amongst those circumstances,

315

(a) to the state of things existing at the time when the works were carried out or a use of land begun which does not comply with a building law or with planning control; and

(b) to the question how far the authority or any person acting on behalf of the Crown was requesting the owner or occupier of the land to carry out the works or to begin the use objected to; and

(c) to the equity of the case as well as the public interests involved."

The noble and learned Viscount said: The power which is given by Clause 1 (2) is a very wide one. The noble Lord, in opening the debate on the Second Reading, pointed out that there were cases where important works have been established which were of great use to the country and where, by some inadvertence or by the stress of the circumstances of war, some particular provision of one of the Housing Acts or Planning Acts had not been complied with. Under the clause as drawn it will be possible to insist upon these works or the use of the works, being treated as illegal, with consequences which may be exceedingly serious, as the noble Lord quite frankly admitted, to the owners of the works or the people who are engaged in running them. No statement in the Bill as it stands shows the nature of the things which should be considered by the authority when, under Clause 2 (2), in determining whether the works or use fail to comply, and, under (3), where they determine the works or use fail to comply, in further determining whether the works or use shall be deemed to comply or in making such order as to the time for which such work or use may be continued, the carrying out of alterations, or other matters, as the authorities think expedient.
Speaking from a large experience, I know very well that where authorities like that are given in any Acts of Parliament, Judges and counsel are constantly complaining that the Act does not say how the power conferred has to be exercised and on what grounds. The Housing Acts themselves contain, in a clause with which I need not trouble your Lordships, a realization of that in a statement that the authority in making such an order has got to have regard to certain circumstances. I have tried here to do no more than set out, with a completely even hard, the circumstances to which I think
316
the authorities ought to have regard and, as a result, to which the Minister of Health, to whom there is an appeal under subsection (8), himself should' have regard. Although I am not wedded to the exact phrases I have used, I have been in hopes that either these particular words or something like them might be inserted, not to have any result beyond that the local authorities, who often do not contain lawyers, or the Minister of Health, who often is not himself a lawyer, should be told the sort of thing which has to be considered.
Take the case—it may be an extreme one—where an important manufacturer is asked to construct works on a piece of land which are thought at the time the request is made to him to be absolutely essential to the benefit of the country. I think a good many of your Lordships will know, as I have occasion to know, that after Dunkirk there was in certain quarters what may be described as a panic, because we found we were so unprepared with a number of things and had lost a very large part of our armament. I know quite well there were people who were urgently requested by the highest authorities to get to work and make certain things as soon as possible, and when they said "We have no factory" they were told to take a piece of land and do the job.
In a case like that it must be quite impossible that the local authority should not have regard to the circumstances under which the works were erected, and the user of the land started, or the actual factory built on the land. All I want to ensure is that the local authority before whom the matter may come do not think that because they have come to the conclusion there has been a neglect to comply with some building law or planning control they must therefore exercise the strict letter of the law, and, it may be, send people into liquidation in an extreme case. If my words are bad words—and I am not wedded to them at all, as I have said—let us have something different, let us have an improvement on them, but do not let the position stand as it is, where it would almost seem that the local authorities, without considering anything except the question of whether the rules have been properly observed, will at once exercise the powers which they have been given under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, at end insert the said new subsection."—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD HENDERSON: The purpose of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment is one for which there would be a good deal of sympathy were it not already provided for in the Bill. Let me give the position as it is in the Bill. The local authority when dealing with a case under the preceding subsection will necessarily have regard to all the relevant circumstances. Nothing is barred. Since they are to have the express power to determine that works shall be deemed to comply with the law, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, even though they in fact do not comply with the law, they must, amongst other things, consider how those works came into existence. One of the circumstances-they will have to consider will be, of necessity, whether the owner or occupier of the land carried out the work at the instance of a Department of the Government or of the local authority itself. If they decide against the owner of the land, there is, under subsection (8), a right of appeal to the Minister of Health, and he in turn will have to have regard to all the circumstances.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Are those words there anywhere? The point whether all the circumstances have got to be considered is at the basis of what I am saying. Certainly in subsection (2) there are no such words.
LORD HENDERSON: The fact that the Bill provides that either authority can come to a determination that a building may be carried on, with conditions or without conditions, despite the fact that there is a breach of the law, to my mind indicates that all relevant circumstances will be taken into account and not merely the technical position under the law.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: They ought to be taken into account, but it is another question whether they will be.
LORD HENDERSON: The Amendment also proposes that the equity of the case is to be taken into account as well as the public interest involved. The scheme of the Bill is that the authority which has the primary function of enforcing the law and the Minister of Health on appeal shall have regard to all possible
318
interests, public and private, and there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that cases are to be decided on a narrow or technical ground. For these reasons I am unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, and I hope that in the light of my explanation he may not feel it necessary to press it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If the noble Lord had had as much experience of the Courts as I have had, we should not have heard the speech he has just made. I feel quite satisfied that it does not necessarily follow that the various things I have set out in my Amendment will be as a right insisted upon by the person who has done the work or has been guilty of the use which is wrong. However, there it is. I only suggest that he should take legal advice on this subject. It is the commonest thing to insert such words as "having regard to all the circumstances of the case," and indeed I could call attention to a number of cases in which those words have been inserted. In the Housing Act, for example, they were put in. If he would only put in those words I should be, not indeed fully, but partly content. I would strongly urge the noble Lord at a later stage to reconsider this matter, but I do not insist on my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the end of subsection (8), to insert:
"provided also that the Minister of Health may, in giving any determination as to whether any works or use fail to comply with any Building Laws, direct that where the work or use has been carried out in accordance with a code generally recognised as satisfactory according to up-to-date practice it shall be deemed to comply with the Building Laws for the purposes of this Act."
The noble Lord said: The point is that I am informed that building laws in certain parts of the country are really not up to date, and that there may exist a code of practice which does not comply with the building laws but is nevertheless quite satisfactory and recognized by the best professional people as being so, and at the same time is less exacting than the building laws at present in force. I understand that there is published by the Code of Practice Committee under the aegis of the Ministry of Works a volume called "The Code of Functional Requirements," and that this differs from the by

319
laws in some parts of the country. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am afraid that I shall not be able to give the noble Lord any more favourable reply on this Amendment than on the last. I will give the reason for that. The point has frequently been made that building laws are not brought and kept up to date. It is true that amongst the building laws set out in Clause 7 of this Bill there are included some statutes of the last century, but I gather from the noble Lord's speech that he is thinking particularly of the building by-laws of local authorities, and in this case too his assumption is erroneous. The fact is that the building by-laws of all local authorities in England and Wales were brought completely up to date in the interval between the Public Health Act, 1936, and the outbreak of war. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister from doing what the Amendment proposes to empower him to do. It is open to local authorities under Clause 2 (3) or to the Minister on appeal under Clause 2 (8) to determine that a work is to be deemed to comply with the law, even though in fact it does hot, and it is evident that one of the grounds on which such a determination would be made would be that the work, although contravening the law, did accord with some recognized code of practice drawn up by a professional organization. In the light of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The explanation is more satisfactory to me than the one given to the proposer of the previous Amendment. I have much pleasure in withdrawing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the end of subsection (12), to insert:
"(13) Any direction, decision, determination or appointment of the Minister of Health under subsections (7), (8), (9), (10) or (12) of this section relating to planning control shall not be made without prior consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers not to building by-laws, but to planning control, and it arises from the fact that although I read Clause 2 twice over on the occasion of the Second Reading I failed to understand it. I have read it twice more since then and still fail to understand it. The object of my Amend, merit is to make quite sure that in matters of planning control the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be the person who will have a considerable say. I was not brought up as a lawyer, and only a lawyer can understand the clause, but if I have an assurance that the reference to the Minister of Town and Country Planning means that he in fact will have the right to be treated as the authority on Town and Country Planning it would at least give me some comfort. But if that is so, I cannot see any reason why my Amendment should not be put in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HENDERSON: What the noble Lord has in mind in moving this Amendment is perfectly clear. The method he suggests, however, is open to objection. The Government is but one Government, and it is an incorrect procedure to impose a duty on one Minister of the Crown to consult another Minister when exercising a statutory function. When two or more Ministers are concerned administrative arrangements between the Departments affected are always made with a view to ensuring the necessary liaison. The relation between the Minister of Health as the building authority under this Bill and the other Departments or Ministries who may be concerned with it has been the subject of a great deal of consideration. If the Minister of Health were put under the express obligation to consult the Minister of Town and Country Planning in certain matters he ought logically to be required to consult the Minister of Transport with regard to matters arising under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, the Road Improvements Act, and other relevant legislation. He ought, perhaps, also to be required to consult the President of the Board of Trade in regard to questions affecting the use of factories which are being turned over for civilian production.
In short, there is no reason for the consultations which might be laid down to

321
stop short with town and country planning. I can assure the noble Lord that in practice there will be close and constant consultation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning upon the application of planning law under this Bill, as there will be with other Departments concerned with various aspects of building law. It is probable that some questions can be settled on general lines without the necessity for individual consultation in the cases which arise. But, obviously, any cases of importance will have to be the subject of specific consultation with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning or, as the case may be, with the Ministry of Transport. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the Government to put on the face of the Bill an obligation which is already implicit in the Bill, and which it is contrary not only to sound constitutional doctrine but to the modern practice in such matters to make explicit.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In view of the noble Lord's very considered and definite statement that there will be definite arrangements for consultation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Supplementary provisions as to enforcement
3.—(1) Where during the period of five years beginning with the end of the war period any person proposes to take steps for enforcing a building law or planning control in the case of works on land not complying with the law or control in question carried out during the war period, or a use of land not complying with the planning control in question begun during that period, he shall serve on every owner and occupier of the land not less than twenty-eight days' notice of the proposal, and if within the said period of twenty-eight days any person makes an application under the last foregoing section in relation to the land and within seven days of the making thereof serves on the person proposing to take steps as aforesaid notice that the application has been made, no steps for enforcing the law or control shall be taken until the final determination of the application.
(2) In calculating any period of time limiting the taking of steps for enforcing a building law, any period during which the taking of such steps is delayed by the operation of the last foregoing subsection shall be disregarded.
(3) No proceedings for the recovery of a fine or other penalty shall be brought against any
322
person for having carried out during the war period works on land which do not comply with a building law:
Provided that this subsection shall not affect proceedings for the recovery of expenses incurred in taking steps for enforcing a building law.
(4) Where works on land carried out during the war period' do not comply with a building law, steps for enforcing the law may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment, be taken without, previous conviction of any person of a contravention of the law.
5.35 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1), after "period," where that word fourthly occurs, to insert:
("(a) unless an application under the last foregoing section in relation to the land has been made which has not been finally determined.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with the Amendment proposed to be made later in this clause will remove a possible overlapping with Clause 2, and they are intended to do two things. The first is; that a notice under subsection (1) need not be served if a Clause 2 application has already been made and is pending; and the second is that the enforcing authority cannot take steps to enforce while a Clause 2 application is being dealt with. This Amendment will secure the first object. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, after ("period") insert ("then—
(a) unless an application under the last foregoing section in relation to the land has been made which has not been finally determined").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
(" (b) if such an application has been made which has not been finally determined, no such steps shall be taken until the final determination thereof:
Provided that no notice shall be required under paragraph (a) of this subsection if steps for enforcing a building law or planning control in the case of any works on land are begun within twenty-eight days of the final determination of an application under the last foregoing section in relation to the land."
The noble Lord said: The words here proposed to be inserted are intended to secure the second object to which I have referred, namely, that the enforcing authority cannot take steps to enforce while a Clause 2 application is being dealt with. The proviso will dispense with

323
the necessity for a notice under subsection (1) if proceedings to enforce the law are begun within twenty-eight days after the determination of a Clause 2 application. The purpose of such a notice is to give the owner or other persons interested time to make a Clause 2 application. If there has already been such an application, and proceedings for enforcement are begun promptly after its determination, it may be assumed that a new application on a change of circumstances cannot be made, and there is, therefore, no need to give notice that steps for enforcement are proposed to be taken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Where a determination under subsection (3) of section two of this Act that works or a use of land shall be deemed to comply with a building law has been given subject to any condition as to time or otherwise, and the determination ceases to have effect by reason of the time expiring or the condition not being, or ceasing to be, complied with, any period of time limited for enforcing the law—

(a) where apart from this subsection it would run from the date on which the works were carried out or the use was begun, shall run from the date on which the determination ceased to have effect;

(b) where apart from this subsection it would run from the discovery that the works had been carried out or the use had been begun, shall run from the discovery that the determination has ceased to have effect.

(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of section one of this Act and of the last foregoing subsection, the time within which a notice of irregularity may be served under subsection (2) of Section eighty-nine of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, in respect of works carried out during the war period shall be the expiration of twelve months from the end of that period or the time limited by the said subsection (2), whichever is the later."
The noble Lord said: The point of the new subsection (3) is that under the Bill as it left another place there was no express provision for a local authority to exercise its ordinary summary powers, if a conditional determination under Clause 2, allowing a building or use to continue for a time or subject to conditions, ceased to have effect by expiry of time or breach of any condition. The local authority would not, in those cases, have been left without remedy, because they
324
could have taken proceedings in the High Court, but it has been thought right to put them as nearly as possible in the same position as they would have been in had the conditional determination not been given. The effect of the Amendment will therefore be that the local authority will have twelve months from the date on which the determination ceases to have effect within which to take summary proceedings to enforce the law. The provision in paragraph (b) making time run from the discovery of this fact is necessary for London. I will deal with that in the next new subsection.
The new subsection numbered (4) is being inserted to meet a point which has been brought to notice by the London County Council. The London Building Acts Amendment Act, 1939, contains a provision peculiar to London, by which the District Surveyor can serve what is called a "Notice of Irregularity" upon discovering that a building does not comply with the law. He must, however, serve this notice within three weeks of making the discovery. The District Surveyors in London are already aware of many cases where there have been contraventions of the ordinary law. It will not be practicable (nor indeed would it be at all desirable from the point of view of property owners) to serve within the period of twenty-one days from the passing of the Act all the notices required. The Amendment, therefore, proposes to give twelve months for the serving of a notice of irregularity, this being the same period as is allowed by the Public Health Act, 1936, to provincial local authorities for taking summary proceedings to get a building altered if it does not comply with provincial building law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved to insert:
"(7) For the purposes of this section an application shall be treated as having been finally determined notwithstanding that under the proviso to subsection (9) of the last foregoing section a subsequent application may be made under subsection (1) thereof."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this proposed new subsection is to enable local authorities to enforce the law in the light of the circumstances existing at the time when a Clause 2 application is dis

325
posed of, notwithstanding that upon a change of circumstances a fresh application to allow the building to stand or a use to continue might be made. Without this new subsection there would be no finality and local authorities would be stultified in enforcing the law when a Clause 2 application has been refused. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAMhad given notice to move, at the end of subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any building law or in the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, or the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, no person upon whose land works have been carried out or a use of land begun not complying with such building law, or with any planning control shall, where such works have been carried out or such use begun, either by or on behalf of the Crown or of a local authority, be liable for any expense consequent upon the taking of steps to enforce such building law or planning control in excess of the total of the following, namely:

(a) Any amounts which may have been received by him under the provisions of section 2 (1) (b), or section 3 (iv) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939; and

(b) Any financial benefit which he may have received from the said works or from the said use of such land."

The noble Lord said: When I put down this Amendment I intended it as a genuine Amendment and a genuine effort to improve this Bill and in no spirit of controversy whatever. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was good enough to tell me that he was unable to accept this Amendment. I then hoped that the Amendment put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, might to some extent relieve the position, but that also has not been accepted. In fact, it is getting fairly obvious that no Amendments from this side of the House are going to be accepted. I must say that I think that is a very great pity and the time might easily come when we might have to insist on reasonable Amendments of this kind being accepted. At least we might insist on better explanations for their rejection than the ones we have been having of late. However, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill also told me, quite rightly probably, that there was another issue involved in this Amendment of mine and that that was the issue of Privilege, that supposing
326
it was passed by your Lordships it would entail a Financial Resolution in another place. Well, if the Government are going to resist my Amendment here and if it would entail a Financial Resolution in another place, I really honestly see no hope of this Amendment getting on to the Statute Book. I do not want to delay your Lordships in a very heavy day's business, so I do not propose to move my Amendment at all.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Power of Entry.
(3) If any person who in compliance with the provisions of this Section is admitted into a factory, workshop or workplace, discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the factory, workshop or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall, unless such disclosure was made in the performance his duty, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a terra not exceeding three months.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (3), after "liable," to insert "on summary conviction." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely technical. The provision which it proposes to amend was inserted in another place upon an Opposition Amendment accepted at a late stage by the Government. That Amendment unfortunately was incomplete in that it did not provide for enforcement. My Amendment remedies that omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 46, after ("liable") insert ("on summary conviction")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Interpretation.
(6) In calculating for any of the purposes of this Act the period of five years from the end of the war period there shall be disregarded any time during which a building law or planning control is unenforceable by reason of the subsistence in or over land of any interest or right to possession held by Dr on behalf of the Crown.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (6), after "which "to insert" notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of Section one of this Act." The noble Lord said: Again, the point

327
of this is purely technical. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove the appearance of verbal conflict between this subsection and Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, after ("which") insert ("notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of Section one of this Act.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL.
5.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 1:
Notice of and representation respecting statutory instruments.
"—(1) At least forty days before the making of any statutory instrument, notice of the proposal to make the statutory instrument, and of the place where copies of the draft statutory instrument may be obtained, shall be published in the London Gazette.
(2) During those forty days any person may obtain copies of such draft statutory; instrument on payment of not exceeding one shilling, and any representations or suggestions made in writing by a person interested to the Minister responsible for making confirming or approving the statutory instrument shall be taken into consideration by him before finally settling Dm same, and on the expiration of those forty days the instrument may be made, either as originally drawn or as amended by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: This deals with a point I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. The statutory instruments will affect the lives of many of our people and once they are made nobody who is affected under them has an opportunity of approaching, as they can in an ordinary Bill, either representatives in another place or those in your Lordships' House and have amendments made to meet the particular difficulties of their case. The principle I am anxious to urge is that
328
there should be provided in the Bill adequate provision for prior consultation with all those who may be interested, or think themselves interested, before the statutory instrument is actually made. I do not think this is a Party or political question, and it has, I believe, the interest of the ordinary folk of our land as well as of those who have to administer those particular Orders. I think it has the support of the Law Society and the Association of Municipal Corporations. Possibly the wording may not be the best, and I am quite prepared to accept suggestions made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. The first is a verbal one; the second does concern a more substantial point in that it provides that the Minister should not be able to alter a Bill so that it is substantially different between the time notice is first given and when the Order is finally made. All I am concerned with is to establish the principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Addington.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As the noble Lord has intimated that he accepts the proposed Amendments to his Amendment standing on the paper in the name of Viscount Bertie I will put his amendment in the following form:
".—(1) At least forty days before the making of any statutory instrument, notice of the proposal to make the statutory instrument, and of the place where copies of the draft statutory instrument may be obtained, shall be published in the London Gazette.
(2) During those forty days any person may obtain copies of such draft statutory instrument on payment of a sum not exceeding one shilling, and any representations or suggestions made in writing by a parson interested to the Minister responsible for making confirming or approving the statutory instrument shall be taken into consideration by him before finally settling the same, and on the expiration of those forty days the instrument may be made, either as originally drawn or as amended in accordance only with any such representations or suggestions by the Minister."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. This matter has rather an interesting history and When the noble Lord said that the Law Society was supporting the Amendment I wondered if it was a sense of filial piety which made them still support it, and whether possibly the fact of the Association of Municipal Corporations supporting it means that there is some link between the Law Society and

329
the Association. The history is this. In 1891 the Law Society were disturbed about the promulgation of Rules of Court, either County Court or High Court, being made without proper consultation with the Law Society.
Two very eminent solicitors of the day, who, if my recollection is correct, sat on different sides of the House, sought to bring in a private Bill in 1891. Originally it was confined to-the question of Rules of Court but the Government of the day would not have any Bill confined to Rules of Court and wanted to extend it. However, it did not meet with success then, and in '1893 it was introduced again by the same people and it was then confined entirely to Rules of Court. 'The Government altered it, and, after very considerable alterations in this House, it became the Rules Publication Act which we now know.
That Act provides that Rules have to be laid 40 days before they become effective, and they have to be published in the London. Gazette so that representations may be made by the public. Section 1 of the Act does not apply to Scotland. Since the institution of Northern Ireland, it has never applied to Northern Ireland. It does not, for some reason, apply to certain Government Departments, and, although I am speaking subject to recollection, as I have not got the Act here, it does not apply to the Local Government Board as it was then; it does not apply to the Post Office; it does not apply to the Revenue Department; it does not apply to the Board of Agriculture in certain orders and there are certain other exceptions. I have tried to find some common principle or to find out what the history of these exceptions was and I am quite unable to do so. In the net result, as time has passed, it has been found more and inure that Statutes which have been passed, instead of relying on the code, expressly provide that the code shall not apply. I asked the draftsman to look up the last eight years. He looked up the eight years ending 1934, and I warn your Lordships, as this was done late last night, it can only be as rough check, but, it is the sort of test to apply. Of the Bills in respect to which the Rules Publication Act would apply, in 45 cases Section 1 of that Act was expressly excluded. The Act was left to apply in only twenty-seven Statutes, so
330
it has become more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
By a strange irony of fate, so far as the original intention of the Law Society is concerned, it does not apply to County Court rules, because County Court rules do not have to be laid, and Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act of 1893 does not apply to rules which have not to be laid, and it does not apply to rules of the High Court, because there is an express' provision in Section 99 of the Supreme Court of judicature Act, 1925, excluding the section. The reason is that it has been found by experience that a very much, better way of dealing with proposed rules is to ask the organizations concerned to meet you-for consultation and to ask their opinion, rather than publish the rules in the Gazette and wait for representations to be made I think there is real substance in this. During the time when a Government Department are discussing draft rules, which are merely on paper—they are not in any way crystallized or fixed—they have meetings with representatives of all parties concerned, and they are perfectly free to alter the rules. Once the rules are promulgated and published in the Gazette the tendency is for a Departmental view to become crystallized. Your Lordships probably know enough about Departments to know this, that once a Departmental view becomes set it is rather difficult to move it.
Therefore, what we have done is this. We have now departed in the great majority of cases from the machinery of the Rules Publication Act. We no longer promulgate the regulations or rules in the Gazette and wait for representations to be made. We go to the trade or the interest concerned and deal with it by getting them round the table, hearing what they have to say, and then drafting the rules after obtaining their views. I believe 'that is the better way and I think it would be a pity to go back to the old procedure. The very expert Committee, which was set up in the time of the last Government considered this question very carefully, and came to the conclusion quite definitely to leave out Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act. When this came before the House of Commons, although the point had been mentioned during the Second Reading, and some authorities, the Law Society, and the Association of Municipal Corporations,

331
had sent round to members, when the Bill came before the Committee in that House, although it was considered by great experts, including many members of the scrutinizing Committee, this point was not advocated at all. I believe, my Lords, it is very much better to do what we have done in this Bill, and to content ourselves with this. Under Section 4 we say, "subject as hereinafter provided, a copy of the instrument shall be laid before each House of Parliament before the instrument comes into operation." You couple that with the new Clause 3, which provides that if anybody is prosecuted for a breach of one of the regulations, it shall be a defence to him if he can show it has not been published, or rather it is for the prosecution to show that it was brought to his notice before he can be guilty of a breach of these regulations. I would, therefore, venture to hope that the noble Lord will agree we are taking the better and more modern course.
There is a question now being debated to-day in the House of Commons, the question of national insurance. Where one is dealing with insurance funds, which affect a very large number of people, your Lordships will see that a Bill now before the Commons contains a clause—I think it is Clause 76—which sets out a machinery of its own, but very much like Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act machinery. And, of course, it is always possible in those cases, where the matter is one of such wide interest that cannot be dealt with properly by meeting sectional representatives, to insert in the Bill machinery, as is being done in the National Insurance Bill, to provide for wide consultation. For these reasons I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
5.52 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hesitate very, much to intervene in a matter which is quite clearly really one for a lawyer rather than for a layman, but for reasons which I am going to endeavour to give to your Lordships, I for one am not entirely convinced by the very excellent case which the noble and learned Lord has made. Of course, I quite agree, what we have got to do is not to go back to the Rules Publication Act, 1893. That, as we know, had a great many loopholes. There was the dodge of Provisional
332
Orders which Government Departments are fond of making, and the Provisional Order remains for ever, and so on. Consequently the Rules Publication Act really does not help us very much, but I do not think the object of my noble friend is really to go back to the Rules Publication Act 1893. It is to try and get back to the principle that the subjects are entitled to prior notice before legislation affecting them is made.
The noble and learned Lord has told us that the practice of getting the trade organizations or the other bodies round the table and consulting them is the one which in the public interest is best. I am not wholly convinced that that is so. If I may mention to your Lordships an incident in my own personal experience, when the Coal Act was going through your Lordships' House a year or two ago, the people who were mainly consulted was a body called the Mine Owners' Committee. The Mine Owners' Committee consisted very largely of large royalty owners who for many years had enjoyed coal royalties. There was a very small class of people who owned coal which was proven but undeveloped. These people have never had royalties to any extent at all. Their interests were tremendously affected because they were owners of the coal of the future. In particular, in my own case, it was the great Scottish coalfield, where the coal was at such a depth that at that time it could hardly be developed. My interest—I mention my own personal case because it has a bearing on the matter—was very different from the interest of people who had enjoyed for many years royalties on developed and worked coal. That is an instance to show that the trade organization or body of people are not the only people to be consulted, and unless the prior notice suggested by this Amendment is given, I do not quite see how the ordinary man is necessarily to get his information.
Nor do I see that the insertion of this Amendment would prevent the Department following the procedure which the noble and learned Lord advocated, which is to draft rules after ascertaining the view of the people concerned. I should have thought that could have been done and at the same time this principle, which all your Lordships know to be of vital importance, that there should be antecedent publicity before laws are

333
made, re-established. Now-a-days, with the complicated machinery and the tremendous number of statutory instruments which are going to go on pouring forth—I think it is estimated at two or three a day for every working day of Parliament—this principle of prior notice is tremendously important.
I fully recognize that during the continuance of the emergency and until things get back to normal, some Orders—Food Orders, for instance—will have to be made without the prior notice this Amendment would demand, and some provision for that sort: of thing would have to be inserted, but my noble friend and I did not think it was our business to suggest the things the Government would have to put in if they accepted the Amendment; they are quite capable of doing that themselves. I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that the principle that there should be antecedent publicity before legislation is passed affecting the ordinary life of the subject should be returned to and should be observed, and I hope my noble friend will not be too easily satisfied by the explanation of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very grateful, both to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, and to my noble friend for the support he has given me. I should have liked the principle established in the Bill itself. It is entirely at the choice of the Department concerned, both as to whether they consult and with whom they have the consultation. I very much regret that principle cannot be established, but I should like it to have consideration. However, I am not prepared to press the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
6.5 p.m.
Clause 4 [Statutory Instruments which are required to be laid before Parliament]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "Parliament," to insert "after being made." The noble and learned Lord said This Amendment is a drafting one.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, after ("Parliament") insert ("after being made")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Statutory Instruments which are subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
5.—(1) Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of: his Act, it is provided that any statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament, the instrument shall be laid before Parliament end the provisions of the last foregoing section shall apply thereto accordingly, and if either House, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy thereof is laid before it, resolves that the instrument be annulled it shall thenceforth become void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new statutory instrument.
(2) Where any Act passed before the date of the commencement of: his Act contains provisions requiring that any Order in Council or other document made in exercise of any power conferred by that or any other Act shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall not come into force or shall cease to be in force or may be annulled, as the case may be, if within a specified period either House presents an address to His Majesty or passes a resolution to that effect, then, subject to the provisions of any Order in Council made under this Act, any statutory instrument made in exercise of the said power shall by virtue of this Act be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament and the provisions of the last foregoing subsection shall apply thereto accordingly in substitution for any such provisions as aforesaid contained in the Act passed before the said date.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, again, a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after the second ("Parliament") insert ("after being made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the words "not come into force or shall." The noble and learned Lord said: This really goes with the next Amendment on clause 7. Since this Bill passed through its stages in the House of Commons, we have passed a Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act which has recently received the Royal Assent. The effect of that is that there are certain instruments which will come both under that Act and under this Bill, and it is very desirable that there should not be confusion about the matter. The object of these Amendments is to make it plain that if an instrument comes under

335
the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, it should be to that Act, and that Act alone, that we should look to see whether it is regular and in order; and it shall not come under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("not come into force or shall").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that where the Statutory Instrument is an order in Council its annulment shall be brought about by a Resolution adopting a prayer to His Majesty submitting that the order be annulled."
The noble Lord said: In this Bill we are doing one or two things which are, if I may suggest it, somewhat unusual. First, in Clause 1, we bracket Orders in Council with what I may term Ministerial Orders, and call both "Statutory Instruments," and then in Clause 5 (1) we make provision that:
"Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act, it is provided that any statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament, the instrument shall be laid before Parliament and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall apply thereto accordingly, and if either House, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy thereof is laid before it, resolves that the instrument be annulled, it shall thenceforth become void &"
We make a similar provision in the next paragraph for Acts of Parliament passed before the passing of this Act. Thus this Bill attempts to have Orders in Council made in one way and rendered void in a completely different way. They are made as in the old way, by His Majesty himself in Council—a number of us, in the course of our time, have attended Council and heard the Orders approved in Council with His Majesty present. But this Bill will mean that in future they are not annulled in the way that they are made; they are annulled in quite a different way. The old way was for one of the Houses of Parliament to pray His Majesty that he would be pleased to annul the 'Order in Council, upon which, in the normal course, a Council meeting was held and the Order no doubt was annulled or amended in some such way as Parliament indicated in its wishes. Now, I think constitutionally we should do far better to keep the old practice, and that is the object of my Amendment. But I am not
336
merely basing this on constitutional propriety; I am basing it on what I think is practical common sense.
If you annul an Order in a different way from that in which it is made, the announcement of the annulment does not appear in the same set of papers. Therefore anybody who keeps a record of Orders in Council, as records must be kept in the law libraries and elsewhere in the Courts, has no similar record of what takes place in either House of Parliament. It seems to me that it is quite impracticable that these librarians and others in the Law Courts, in solicitors' offices and other places should have to search not only through Orders in Council, one of which in a series would repeal one beforehand, but should also have to search through the proceedings of each House of Parliament to see whether by any chance that House had annulled the Order.
Nor in these days may sufficient notice be given of the annulment of the Order. It may well take place quite late at night in either House of Parliament. Certainly the other House at midnight might pass such a Resolution and it would never get into the papers because they would all have gone to press, and therefore no notice whatever of the annulment of the Order would appear, not only to the people affected by it but to the people administering it. One of these Orders in Council having a criminal penalty attaching to it might well be repealed and a police constable or other official whose duty it was to enforce the law might well arrest somebody under that Order in Council, only to be told afterwards "You did it on Thursday morning, but did not you know that at twelve o'clock on Wednesday night the House of Commons passed a Motion annulling the Order?" That may be thought to be straining the point, but I do not think it is; it might happen.
I am not very much wedded to the words I put down but I do believe it is right that the Order should be annulled by the same process by which it is made, that is to say, so that if it is an Order in Council which is in question there is a subsequent Order in Council repealing it. That would keep our law in a tidy state. Quite frankly, I do not think my Amendment is very well drafted. It is extremely difficult to draft it except by

337
way of a proviso, because otherwise I would have to go right back and take Orders in Council separate from Ministerial Orders right through. I believe it will be in accordance with constitutional procedure that if His Majesty has made an Order in Council it should be repealed by His Majesty in Council, and I also believe it is for practical convenience that that should take place. I believe it is a substantial point, and a practical point, and if the Lord Chancellor to-clay cannot accept my actual words I would ask him to consider whether he cannot do something to meet it at a further stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, at end insert (" Provided that where the Statutory Instrument is an Order in Council its annulment shall be brought about by a Resolution adopting a Prayer to His Majesty submitting that the Order he annulled ')—(Lord Llewellin.)
6.12 p.m.
THE: LORD CHANCELLOR: I have some measure of sympathy with the noble Lord and I am glad to see that the profession of law which he used to adorn has still obviously got a hold on him. His excellence as a constitutional lawyer is beyond question, but when he came to his technical arguments it seemed to me that they applied just as well to Ministerial orders as to Orders in Council, and his Amendment of course only touches Orders in Council. I do not pretend that this is a matter which has not been very seriously considered by highly expert people. The difficulty attending upon it first of all became manifest, I think, at a time when King George V happened to be in the South of France. This formula, which is the politer formula and that used in other days, involves that before an Order in Council can be annulled it is necessary for an Address to be presented, that is, the Lords with White Staves have actually to present it to His Majesty. On that occasion His Majesty was abroad and real difficulties arose in consequence. When the Emergency Powers ('Defence) Act of 1939 was being passed at the beginning of the war [this very question was carefully considered and it was thought better to establish a new form, that is-to say, what I may call an automatic annulment on the Motion being passed. That has been followed almost invariably in the war-time legislation.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Has it ever happened that either House has passed a Motion of annulment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. It is an odd thing that the Houses do not seem to have realized what they have done, but the Scrutinizing Committee have now woken up to it. Wherever the members of the House of Commons have wished to contest a Defence Regulation they have moved an Address to His Majesty praying that tic regulation be annulled, and that was apparently done on the advice of the officers of the House. A highly ingenious Scrutinizing Committee have now realized that that was all wrong and that they had been carrying on that old procedure, not realizing that by their modern legislation they had invented a new procedure. I am told that some of the members of that committee consider the practice should be abandoned in the future, so what the future holds in store in that respect I do not know. The fact is, however, that ever since the passing of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act in 1939, in all our wartime legislation there has been provision for automatic annulment.
This matter came before a highly expert committee under Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. This was one of the precise matters they considered and they came the conclusion that the right way in which to draft this Bill was the way in which it is drafted to-day, that is to say, not providing for the politer form which the noble Lord asked for, and a form well appropriate in the more spacious days we used to have. Therefore, I cannot pretend that the matter has not been considered, and under those circumstances it is not for me to go back to a form which has really been abandoned since the beginning of the war.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in his argument has raised a point of great constitutional interest, and one which, I think, deserves some further consideration both by your Lordships House and by the Government. The reason given for making this alteration does not seem to me in itself to be a very conclusive one, namely, that the Sovereign may be absent abroad at a time when some urgent matter needs attention and the provisions of this Act, if modified in the manner desired by the noble Lord, might involve delay. Surely that may be remedied by some ad hoc change of procedure. There are various powers exercisable in the absence of the Sovereign by other authority and this might well be included in those powers.

339
The power of the Crown to make laws or regulations having the force of law is of very ancient origin. The preamble to this Bill now in your Lordships hands recites the usual formula: "Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled." Consequently, it is the Sovereign who actually makes the laws and the signature of the Crown to a particular Act of Parliament confers upon it a validity which until that moment it does not possess.
Similarly, the power to make an Order in Council is of very ancient origin and is now exercised, as it has always been exercised, by the Sovereign in person. In fact the Privy Council is a more ancient organ of the Constitution even than your Lordships House or the House of Commons. The Sovereign in person makes a particular Order in Council in the presence of a quorum of the councillors and that has the force of law. Now, under this provision, a Resolution of either House may annul that. It does seem to me that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has a very strong case with this particular proposal, which it might be held is not consonant with the dignity of the Crown, or indeed of the Privy Council. As one of the most senior members of the Privy Council—I regret to claim that melancholy privilege, having been a member now for nearly forty years—it does appear to me that this particular change should require greater consideration. Indeed, I am not sure that it ought not to be necessary that the consent of the Crown should be signified to an Amendment to a law of this kind before it is passed by the Houses of Parliament.
We all know that the matter is one of form rather than of substance. There is no question of the Crown misusing its powers or of any check being imposed by Parliament. But the form is not unimportant, and it is essential to my mind that the position should be safeguarded. When the Sovereign personally has made an Order in Council, with the consent of the Council, some similar procedure should be required for its annulment rather than a mere Resolution. It is not even a question of a joint Resolution of the two Houses, but of one House only,
340
and it can have this constitutional effect. In these circumstances I submit that the Lord Chancellor might give some further consideration to this matter before the Bill reaches the House at a later stage.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think this does merit some further consideration. I do not doubt that it has already received a great deal of attention, but I am not sure that the matters which have been brought to the notice of your Lordships from this side of the House have been materially considered. With all respect to the Lord Chancellor, I understood him to use the expression "a wrong procedure," meaning apparently a wrong procedure to ask for an Order in Council to annul what has been originally imposed by an Order in Council. Let me refer your Lordships to the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill which was before the House a few days ago. In that Bill the first clause provides for the temporary continuation of emergency laws, it proposes to continue them for two years, but it goes on to say this—and I want to know whether the Lord Chancellor thinks that this is a wrong procedure:
"Provided that His Majesty may at any time by Order in Council revoke any such Defence Regulation either in whole or in part."
There is no reference here to any provision for a Resolution by either House. There is a great deal to be said for a search of the files of Orders in Council in order to ascertain whether in fact there has been an Order in Council which cancels a previous one. The search perhaps could most conveniently be made in Hansard, either in volume form or in loose parts, in order to find out the answer to the question as to whether a particular Order in Council continues. I think that the value of an Order in Council has been somewhat minimized in recent years. Of course, if His Majesty were to go to Canada or to any of the Dominions we should not be held up until he came back. It would be a simple matter for his nomination of the next in succession to act for him. I recall that King Edward VII when Prince of Wales presided at a Council which declared the neutrality of this country in some war which had then broken out, and that a learned treatise was written by a foreign lawyer, who did not understand our Constitution, stating that this was an example of how Queen Victoria had conferred

341
upon her son important Royal functions even in her lifetime. Of course, the whole thing is a pure formality. I am speaking with the greatest sincerity on this matter, and with no desire to raise controversy, but I do most respectfully submit to the Lord Chancellor that he might look into this matter again.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly, I will look at it again. The last thing I want to be guilty of is any discourtesy towards the Sovereign, and if there is any question I will certainly look into it again. If I used the phrase "a wrong form" to which the noble and learned Viscount has called attention, I did not intend it quite in the way in which he suggests. It is not a question of wrong form; the real question is as to which is the better form, the substance not: being disputed between us at all. I do not think, if I may say so to the noble and learned Viscount, that this matter has anything to do with the next Bill down for consideration, the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill. Sufficient unto the day be the evil thereof. But I will certainly look into the question again.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged to the Lord Chancellor. I do feel that the point is one of substance. I should like to see not only an Order in Council, annulled by another Order in Council but also a Ministerial Order revoked by the Minister immediately after one of these Resolutions has passed through the Houses of Parliament. The task of terminating the matter ought to be performed by the same person or body which made the thing originally, so that those in the country may know about it and not just depend upon its publication in the Press. It should have the proper publication which it is right that every Order should receive, and an order which cancels another should have the same importance as the first.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I call attention to Clause 14 of the next Bill [the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill] which reads as follows:
"Any Order in Council made under this Part of this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such Order in Council is laid before it, resolves that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect. …
342
That has been the modern practice ever since the outbreak of the war, but I will look at it and see what can be done. Frankly, I had not given much time to considering this matter myself. I know it was considered before. It must be understood that I am not making any promise; I am only saying that I will consult my advisers and see what can be done.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think that what was necessary for war-time in this connexion is not necessary now, nor should it be regarded as a final feature of the Constitution. We ought. I consider, to tidy this up and put it in the way I have suggested. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for the assurance which he has given, and on that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Supplementary provisions as to ss. 3, 4 and 5.
7.—(1) In reckoning For the purposes of either of the last two foregoing sections any period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(2) In relation to any instrument required by any Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act, to be laid before the House of Commons only, the provisions of the last three foregoing sections shall have effect as if references to that House were therein substituted for references to Parliament and for references to either House and each House thereof.
6.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) The provisions of Sections four and five of this Act shall not apply to any statutory instrument being an order which is subject to special Parliamentary procedure or to any other instrument which is required to be laid before Parliament, or before the House of Commons, for any period before it comes into operation."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name. The effect of it is that the provisions of sections four and five of this Act shall not apply to any statutory instrument to which special Parliamentary procedure applies. That is a point which we have had under consideration before.
Amendment moved—

343
Page 4, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Regulations.
8.—(1) The Treasury may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, by statutory instrument make regulations for the purposes of this Act, and such regulations may, in particular:

(a) provide for the different treatment of instruments which are of the nature of a public Act, and of those which are of the nature of a local and personal or private Act;

(b) make provision as to the numbering, printing, and publication of statutory instruments;

(c) provide with respect to any classes or descriptions of statutory instrument that they shall be exempt from the requirement of being printed and of being sold by the King's printer of Acts of Parliament, or from either of those requirements;

(d) determine the classes of cases in which the exercise of a statutory power by any rule-making authority constitutes or does not constitute the making of such a statutory rule as is referred to in subsection (2) of Section one of this Act, and provide for the exclusion from that subsection of any such classes;

(e) provide for the determination by a person or persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons of any question—

(i) as to the numbering, printing, or publication of any statutory instrument or class or description of such instruments:

(ii) whether any statutory instrument or class or description of such instruments is, under the regulations, exempt from any such requirement as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection:

(iii) whether any statutory instrument or class or description of such instruments is in the nature of a public Act or of a local and personal or private Act:

(iv) whether the exercise of any power conferred by an Act passed before the commencement of this Act is or is not the exercise of a power to make a statutory rule.

(2) Every statutory instrument made under this Section shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert:
"including provision for postponing the numbering of any such instrument, which does not take effect until it has been approved by Parliament, or by the House of Commons, until the instrument has been so approved."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is really a little more than drafting. We have power to make regulations about
344
numbering, and if a regulation comes in which does not take effect until it has been approved, we had better, I think, postpone the numbering until the numbering has afterwards been approved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 46, at end, insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), after "exempt," to insert "either altogether or to such extent as may be determined by or under the regulations." The noble and learned Lord said: This is mere drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("exempt") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (e) (ii) of subsection (1), alter "whether" to insert "or to what extent." The noble and learned Lord said: This, too, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, after ("whether") insert ("or to what extent").—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Commencement of Act.
(2) The Order in Council made under this section shall be laid before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "after being made." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, at end, insert ("after being made.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.

EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Clause 1.—Temporary Continuation of Emergency Laws.]
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, before the proviso to subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that Defence Regulation 22 (Billeting) as so modified shall not continue in force beyond the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and, forty-six unless Parliament hereinafter so determines."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I have two Amendments down to be considered, and notwithstanding the hour I think that I should bring them to the attention of the Committee. This Bill, the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, is a measure which a few days ago my noble friend, the Lord Chancellor, spoke of, so far as its form was concerned, in very scathing language and registered his determination never to propose to this House any other Bill so malformed if he could possibly help it. It is undoubtedly a very difficult Bill to consider, and the difficulty arises because there is a very large number of Defence Regulations affected. It does appear to me that there are two matters at least which your Lordships should consider a little further. In the first place, the Bill takes the regulation about forcible billeting—the business of putting upon a resident in a house a civilian party or parties—and simply extends that for two years. The result is, of course, that the Defence Regulation which deals with the matter, Defence Regulation No. 22, is to be regarded as running automatically without any further trouble to anybody until the end of next year. Really, when I look at it, I cannot help feeling, however necessary it may be in some cases to billet one family upon another, that it is a very troublesome provision.
It sets out that any person acting under the authority of the Minister of Health or the Commissioner of Works—he has got to produce that authority—
"may serve upon the occupier of any premises a written notice (hereinafter referred to as a "billeting notice") requiring the occupier of the premises to furnish therein: while the notice remains in force,
346
such accommodation by way of lodging or food or both, and either with or without attendance, as may be specified in the notice for such persons as may be so specified."
Where a room is wanted the Order says that it is to be provided exclusively for the use of the newcomer. The present occupant has to turn out and the Ministry will decide what the appropriate remuneration is to be. There is nothing at all to provide that before the Order is made careful consideration should be given to the extent either to which inconvenience is caused or there is room. It does seem to me to be rather harsh to say: "Oh, we will extend that for another two years." There are a great many people in this country—I know some of them—who have taken people into their houses without any Order at all. They did it as their duty, and out of a sense of good citizenship. No one wants to stop people acting in that way. But I cannot believe that it is absolutely necessary, things being as they are, to keep this regulation alive as proposed. I am moved rather to the view that it is a great pity at one blow to say: "And so it will be for two years further."
My suggestion, as contained in my Amendment, is to extend it for one year unless Parliament hereinafter so determines. It seems to me that if you only consider the ordinary citizens, so many of whom are feeling very heavily burdened by the Orders made, it is particularly harsh and unnecessary to say as one of the evidences of how we are getting on under this new dispensation that the billeting should be kept on for another two years. I should like people to know that 'billeting is felt to be in many cases a real hardship and that it is, in many cases, a real hardship. Is it not better that the Ministry of Health should realize that in employing this regulation now they are in fact using a war-time provision which we should like to get rid of as soon as we can? Is not this one of the things which is better expressed by giving authority to extend it for a year? When the time comes it can be extended if it is found necessary to do it. That is my suggestion. It is not made in any captious or censorious spirit. I know that all your Lordships present—and those who, not unnaturally, have already gone—are all anxious that all citizens should be decently treated. I feel that there are cases in which great hardship is being inflicted and it is being endured

347
with a great deal of public spirit. What is the objection to saying that in this matter—at least we do not expect it to be taken lightly—where we should have it, it should be carried on for another year?
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Simon.)
VISCOUNT LONG: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount. There is nothing very much more that I can add except to agree with every word that the noble Viscount has said. I have had the privilege for five years of having two families living in my house and I can assure your Lordships that it has been part of one's war effort. I make no complaint to-night about that, but I ask your Lordships to give us some little encouragement. Our houses are getting into a very bad state. It is very difficult to get them repaired and I very much doubt if part of my house will stand much more before I shall have to get assistance and have the families taken away and put into a waterproof building, possibly in the centre of Salisbury Plain! At the end of the year the Government could extend this if necessary for a further period, but in the meantime we should like a few crumbs from the master's table. I suggest to His Majesty's Government that they should accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with both the noble Lords who have spoken. It is no good blinking the fact that this particular provision is one which does inflict a great hardship in many cases and it is one I should like to get rid of at the earliest possible moment. I do not think it is the worst in this collection of regulations; I think there are others I dislike still more, but of course I shall not tell you them.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would move an Amendment on Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is idle to deny that is is difficult to have people billeted upon you, but there will be billeting tribunals to whom appeals can be made. We have done everything to see that the thing is as fair as possible but, as I say quite frankly, it is one of those regulations I should be thankful to get
348
rid of at the earliest possible moment. Having said that, I cannot hold out the slightest hope—and I should be dishonest in holding out the hope—that there is the slightest chance of finishing billeting this year. In three respects it is impossible. In the first place, it is quite impossible with regard to the children. There are many children whose parents have died or who have disappeared during this war and for them we have still to resort to billeting. Anybody who knows the situation must know, whatever wonders are performed in the way of housebuilding, that it is quite impossible that we should be able to get rid of this so far as they are concerned.
There is another respect in which it is impossible; it is impossible in respect of nurses. We have got these hospitals. We have not got a chance of building homes for nurses at the moment so you have to accommodate these women, who are doing magnificent work, somewhere near the site of their work. We must have the power and I may say that the fact that we have got the power does enable us in many cases to get agreement. People say, "There is the power there and we had better be reasonable." There is one other case. I was Minister of National Insurance and I was the Minister in the other place who introduced the family allowances scheme which is going to come into force fairly soon. We had to consider where we were going to locate the offices. We came to the conclusion then that we would take an opportunity of getting some of these great offices out of London and so we decided that that office should go to Newcastle. I am sure that that is right. It means for the time being great hardship, but it is an awful pity to my mind to give up the idea of moving out of London just because you have got to go through two or three years' hardship.
We have got to reduce the hardship as far as we can. It is absolutely impossible to contemplate going on with that move at all unless we have the power of billeting and so I say regretfully that this power, which I dislike and which we all dislike and want to get rid of at the earliest possible moment, is one which we must have, and it would be playing with the thing to say that there is the slightest chance of getting rid of this power within the two years. But let us remember that the noble Viscount was good enough to

349
point out to me that this is not necessarily a case in which these regulations go on for two years. We have the power to bring these regulations to an end and I hope to be able to tell your Lordships from time to time that a very large number of them will disappear, but I am quite confident, I regret to say, that this will not be one of the regulations I shall be able to get rid of. So while sympathizing with everything the noble Viscount has said I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD WOOLTON: I am bound to say that I have listened to the Lord Chancellor with great regret. We do not propose to divide the House on this issue to-night, but there were phrases in the Lord Chancellor's speech which struck cold to my heart. He said that "We must have the power," and he said that because we have the power then we can go and discuss the matter and we get agreement. That, my Lords, is not the sort of country we want to live in. Think what the phrase means, "We must have the power." It is not the Lord Chancellor, it is not the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, but it is some very junior civil servant who is going round the country. The Ministers are responsible, but civil servants are the people who are going round, they are the people into whose hands we are putting the temptation to bully the people of this country. This prolonged vista of hardship which the Lord Chancellor seems to think will be necessary for this country is something very discouraging. I am bound, with respect to the Lord Chancellor, to say that he would have given a great deal more comfort not only to those who sit on these Benches, but to the country as a whole, if he had said, "Well, we need these powers now, but in twelve months' time we shall have done our best to get rid of them. We may not, Probably we may not have succeeded, but we will come back to you then and tell you what we have done and will ask you to give us further time if we need it." I wish, my Lord, it had been possible for you to take that view. It would have given great satisfaction not only to the people on these Benches, but to the country as a whole. However, if my appeal cannot be valid with you, we shall not divide the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

DEFENCE REGULATIONS CONTINUED FOR TEMPORARY PERIOD.

  PART I.
  Defence (General) Regulations, 1939.

  32AB

  Power to require nurses, etc., to continue in employment institutions.

  No new orders shall be made, and Article 3 of the Mental Nurses (Employment and Offences) Order, 1941, and Article 3 of the Mental Nurses (Employment and Offences) (Scotland) Order, 1943, shall cease to have effect.

  6.52 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to leave out the references to Regulation 32AB. The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the only other Amendment I have put down, and I take it that the Lord Chancellor thinks I might have got an even better one, but this is good enough for me, or rather bad enough. It really is a most astounding provision if your Lordships will turn to page II of this Bill you will see that one of the Defence Regulations which is to be extended for another two years is Regulation 32A13, which is described as
  "Power to require nurses, etc., to continue in employment in mental institutions."
  In order that you may understand the real character of this proposal, it is necessary to look at the modest little volume which contains the Defence Regulations, because the fact is that Regulation 32AB was merely a supplementary regulation to the main Regulation under which all sorts of people during the war were quite rightly compelled to stay at their jobs. If you will allow me to quote the necessary words of the Regulation 32AB—" Power to require nurses, etc., to continue in employment in mental institutions"—which was only made in 1941 they are as follows:
  "The Minister of Health if he considers it expedient so to do in the interests of the public safety—"
  that is possibly to prevent the escape of lunatics!
  "—or the maintenance of public order … may make, in relation to persons employed as nurses or in any similar capacity in mental institutions any such order as may be made by the appropriate authority

  351
  under paragraph (1) or paragraph (1A) of Regulation 29B."
  29B is the main regulation.
  If you turn to 29B you will find, as many people know, it is the regulation which really secured the continuance in the Service of all sorts of people who are now going to be free to give it up—persons employed as constables, Women's Auxiliary Police Corps, Police Auxiliary Messenger Service, members of the Royal Observer Corp, members of the Civil Defence Reserve, and persons in the service of local authorities or harbour authorities. It was quite natural and right in war-time to make such a regulation, and, of course, effect was given to it. But all that has gone. These people have to go, no doubt after giving proper notice. And then this miserable little regulation, which was put in two years later as a kind of addendum, is a thing that is to be preserved.
  Whatever the circumstances may be—and I have no doubt there is some reason for it—let us consider what it may mean. It may be a man or a woman—I dare say it is a man in many cases in these mental institutions—who very likely out of a sense of patriotism and public duty entered into this service on a contract, which may not be remunerative, for the period of the war, and I have not the slightest doubt they have done their duty as well as they could. It seems to me to be a dreadfully unfair thing to say to these people: "Other people can regard themselves as free because the war is over, but the war is not over as far as you are concerned. Another two years is your sentence." It does seems a most extraordinary thing to do. The lunatic can get out but the nurse cannot get out. It not only is conscription, but it is conscription in time of peace, not because of a war.
  I should have thought those people really had a strong claim to say "We have not been doing very pleasant work. For goodness' sake don't sit in silence in Parliament, because it is a little line in a Schedule of this Bill of odds and ends, shreds and patches. Please do not, at the time when you are letting everybody else go, let us he sentenced to this business for another two years." That is the case I make. I willingly accept the assurance of the Lord Chancellor that there are still worse cases in the Schedule. His own examination of them convinces him that
  352
  there are things even more objectionable, but I will be content for the time being with this. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, leave out lines 38 to 46.—(Viscount Simon.)
  LORD O'HAGAN: Far be it from me to say anything which would prevent the Lord Chancellor from dealing with this immediately, but I think that those people, who have voluntarily taken up work of this nature, considering the conditions under which they have worked, and the actual work they have had to do, probably have a greater claim to be released from that occupation than a great many of those who come under these regulations. I do not wish to enlarge on it. I think it is so patent. Feeling I think will probably be very strong by those people when it is brought to their notice. There does seem to be a very special case for this particular category of people being released from the occupation which they voluntarily undertook.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When I address your Lordships on these things I try to be a realist. If I do not please my noble friend Lord Woolton by saying what I believe to be the fact, instead of saying what I should like to say, I am sorry. Now, let us take this case. I agree entirely that this is a terribly hard case. The fact that it is work which very few of us would choose is perhaps part of the trouble. At any rate, we have to face the fact that there are, unfortunately, a large number of mental cases, insane people, who have to be looked after. At the present time there is a most acute shortage of nurses, and we cannot get people to undertake this work. Now this is not like many other occupations. Many people are still frozen to their work, as we know, under the Essential Work Order and the like, and I am one of those who long for the day—I hope it will come soon—when we shall take that sort of Order off. I believe that, for a time, you would probably have rather a slump; a lot of people would go away, and then they would filter back again and probably work all the better when they got back. But in this particular type of work you cannot have a break like that, it is obvious.
  The position is one of most critical difficulty. On the one hand, you can say, if you will—and you can say it with great

  353
  truth—that there is hardship on those people, some of whom have given themselves to this work from a sense of public duty, I have no doubt. Of course, they are paid, but there is nothing against them at all in that. Weigh that, on the one hand, with, on the other, the practical consideration of what you are going to do for these helpless inmates of these institutions, who must be looked after. I have asked the Home Office, with all the fire at my command, to say whether they were not prepared, here and now, to do away with this thing, and they said it was absolutely impossible; they could not because they remained responsible for the conduct of these homes which are under a statutory duty to take anybody who comes to them, and those people must be looked after.
  Therefore the most I can say to your Lordships is that we will do the very best we possibly can by getting nurses on a voluntary basis, so that we can remove this restriction. Of course, at the present time, as your Lordships know, under the Order, there is power for these people to go to the person in charge of the institution—it is expressly provided in the Order—and if they show a good case (such as very hard circumstances at home, or having to go home for some cause, or ill-health, or anything of that kind) they can be and are being released. But at the present time it would be impossible for us to remove this restriction altogether.
  It is not right to say that I am contemplating, for one moment, in this case, that this restriction will last for two years or anything like it. This is one of the restrictions I very much hope we shall be able to lift. I should like to have it done this summer. At any rate, we ought not to allow anything to stand in our way, by offering appropriate terms or anything of that sort, to try and get people on a voluntary basis. I hope I shall be able to tell your Lordships in the not distant future that this restriction, which I dislike very much, has gone. But, trying to be a realist in the matter, I am not prepared to say that the Home Office could take the responsibility at the present time of running these institutions unless this power was in the Bill. I ask any of your Lordships, who feel full sympathy for what the noble Viscount has said, as we all must, if you were responsible for running these institutions, would you be prepared to run this risk
  354
  at this time? I venture to say that you would reply: "However regrettable it may be, for the time being this power must stay on; but we will do the best we can to make the: period for which it must stay as short as possible, so that it can be measured in weeks rather than in months."
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the argument the Lord Chancellor has addressed to us is most unconvincing. He bases the whole of his case on the assertion, to which everybody will subscribe, that somebody has got to attend to a lunatic. Be it so. But if that is so, if it is impossible, by paying higher wages, to get people to go and do this work, then there should be some fair and just system by which people are compelled to do it., and they should be fairly chosen.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do you mean unskilled people? This is very highly skilled work.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I believe that a number of these people have gone into it during the war. Does the Lord Chancellor say it applies only to people of the highest skill? I believe, as a matter of fact, that it is in general terms, certainly in the Regulations. It is not confined in the least to highly skilled nurses. II these are employments of the highest possible skill, then the right way to draw people into them is by paying emoluments which are equal to the skill and training.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It applies to nobody if they have not had at least twelve months' experience.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: They have had twelve months' experience during the war. But where is that stated?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "This Order shall not apply to a person or nurse who has no: for the time being completed twelve months in the aggregate."
  VISCOUNT SIMON: They cannot be very highly skilled.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But you cannot just get people in.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I would say this. If you are Faced with a position in which compulsion has got to be exercised, this Government had better consider whether they ought not to make a

  355
  levy on persons who are properly qualified, and do the thing by ballot, and have people coming in by turn. This seems to be a most intolerable position. Conscription is alleged to be necessary, but the people who are to be forced to do it are the people who happen to be there and happen to have the misfortune to be found in this group. A great many people during the war did things which were most disagreeable to them. I know that applies to many women with whom one is acquainted, who volunteered for the hardest and most unpleasant thing they could do because they wanted to be running risks in the same way as their men folk.
  It may well be that there are many people, not young, who volunteered for a job like this during the war because they thought they were doing a thoroughly unpleasant job and it was their duty. These unfortunate people are to be held to it and forced to go on, maybe for two years. I cannot help thinking that this has not been terribly well thought out. I cannot help believing that it is the easy way of doing the thing—to hold people in this way—and that if we were not faced with the spate of legislation which comes upon us day by day, and if more care had been taken, some better provision could have been made. We do not know what wages have been offered. We do not know whether every effort has been made. I think the case is not made out. It is merely stated that the Home Office brief says that lunatics cannot be looked after unless this is done.
  It seems to me to be the kind of case where we ought not just to take a statement of that kind without very, very stringent proof. I think this continued conscription of these people in this job is about the worst, thing we can possibly do. Why cannot we have definite evidence brought before us? How many of these people are there who have got to be held there? Who has advised the Home Office that the whole system will break down unless conscription is continued? Has somebody been round from the Home Office, some really authoritative person, to visit and see whether the full number is necessary, to see whether there is not any way of recruiting fresh people, and to find out what wages have been offered in these various institutions? It may be that that has happened, but
  356
  the Lord Chancellor has given us nothing to-night in fact to justify this. He has taken his brief; he has to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has said that twice. I do not know whether he is trying to be offensive. When I am going to talk to this House I do not read a brief. I have seen the Home Secretary himself on this matter, talked with him, and satisfied myself of what I have told your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not meaning to be offensive to the Lord Chancellor. Believe me, we feel strongly about this, not on any personal ground, but because we feel that a terrible injustice is being done to these unfortunate people. If the Lord Chancellor has (as I am sure he has, now that he has told us so), gone into this very thoroughly, then let me say to him, quite frankly and fairly, that he ought to come to us with some definite evidence and he ought to be able to answer these questions which we are putting to him now. What steps has the Home Secretary himself taken in this matter? Who has investigated these institutions? How many of these institutions are there? How many of these people are there whom it is said to be necessary to hold? Who has taken the decision in advising him about this? The Lord Chancellor himself said just now that when a thing gets departmentalised it is hard to shift it. Of course, this is the easy way for the people who are running these institutions to, keep these people slavishly held and tied. Quite frankly, I do not think the House ought to part with this in this way at this stage.
  I do not believe your Lordships will be satisfied that every step has been taken. The Lord Chancellor says that he hopes the thing might go in a few weeks, certainly in a few months. What about the twelve months' training? What about the skill which is needed? If that really is so, then it is not a case of being able to find people in a few weeks. If, on the other hand, the people responsible for running these institutions are now going to set about their business, which the Government of the day ought to have set about long ago before they produced this Order, to see whether they cannot relieve these people, then in those circumstances I say that this House ought not to-night, on the arguments which have

  357
  been addressed to us, to give the Government the power to hold these people in this slavery, for it is little else, for a period of two years.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Could the Lord Chancellor give me the reference in the Defence Regulations to the provision that it only applies to people with twelve months' experience?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is in an order made under the regulations. The only people who are being held are those who have been there for twelve months. I am not saying that in twelve months you can acquire very great skill, because obviously you cannot, but I am saying that it is absolutely idle, and we are playing with the thing, if we imagine that we can get women to go straight away, without any experience at all, to act as nurses in mental hospitals. Obviously we cannot.
  LORD ADDINGTON: I rise with great hesitation. I am on the management committee of a mental hospital and I can say that we are having extreme difficulty in maintaining our staff. We are doing the utmost we can do to improve conditions. There are several regulations in the Rushcliffe scale about salaries and about hours. We are certainly doing our utmost to see that the hospitals are staffed. It is a very grave responsibility, looking after these people in our charge, and any shortage of staff, of trained staff, may give rise to very serious consequences. I am bound to say that.
  LORD AMMON: I would like to mention that I know something about this so far as the London County Council is concerned, which is the largest authority dealing with this sort of thing. For a very long time past we have been grievously concerned about the shortage of nurses. Anybody who walks about London will see posters all over the city asking for people to volunteer and to be trained for this particular service. We have been more than disturbed with regard to the mental cases because they have increased tremendously, and a great deal of that increase is due to the war. Care has been taken to see, so far as is possible, that nurses who are beginners only work in conjunction with those of greater skill and experience, but owing to the heavier demands made upon them that has not been too easy. Hence the
  358
  proposal that only those who have had at least twelve months' experience—and that has been very intensive experience—should be detained under the regulation that my noble friend is advancing.
  As to conditions, there is nobody in your Lordships' House who can tell you more than the noble Lord Lord Rushcliffe, as to the great improvements which have been made in pay and conditions of the workers in this particular service. He presided over the committee that brought about a great deal of those improvements. We have improved very considerably both the pay and conditions of those engaged in this service, but it takes time, and the demands that are being made and the attractions offered by other industries have all played their part. This is the one service, if there is one, in existence from which we cannot afford to withdraw man-power or woman-power, because if that is done there will not be enough people to tackle these very serious and very difficult cases. Of all cases, mental cases require the most urgent and careful attention. The noble Lord will surely see that if the numbers are diminished much more responsibility will be thrown on those remaining. I hesitated to intervene as my noble friend, with his legal training, has the handling of this, but if am speaking from a knowledge of this matter so far as London is concerned, and that is the largest authority concerned with this matter.
  LORD WOOLTON: May I ask how it is expected to get more people to come into this profession if they are going to be under this bond? Does this regulation apply to people newly recruited?
  LORD AMMON: No.
  LORD WOOLTON: Then my point does not arise.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: This is one of the regulations which only applies to existing staff. This regulation does not apply to anybody who comes in afterwards, and it is very important that that should be made plain, because we are all at one in wishing to assist the recruitment of nurses.
  As I put this Amendment down, and I do not at all regret it I suppose it would be right for me to say, although I feel strongly about it, as ethers do, that I do not think I ought to try and press it at

  359
  the Committee stage. The Lord Chancellor has told us (and knowing with what sincerity he speaks I am not suggesting that he is just presenting a plausible case) that after having consulted with the Home Secretary—and therefore doubtless he says it with the Home Secretary's full concurrence—he hopes this thing will be able to be brought to an end in a few weeks rather than months. If that is the case, would not the Government consider whether they could not do with reference to nurses what they propose to do about billeting?
  In the case of billeting I was met with the answer, "You are really beating the air. If you think this thing can be stopped in a year, it will only raise false hopes. On that ground we must stick to two years for billeting." We accepted that, however unwillingly. Now the situation is reversed. The Lord Chancellor, having consulted the Home Secretary, says he hopes this thing will come to an end at the latest by the summer. Are we justified in making it a rigorous provision for two years? I do suggest that here the proposal should be accepted to allow it to last for another six months and extend it further if this should prove necessary. This is a most unhappily burdensome duty which has been thrust compulsorily upon certain people, and I am sure the Lord Chancellor will be most anxious to minimize the burden of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do this; I will get chapter and verse for every statement I have made to the Committee. I had hoped that my statement on more general lines would have been accepted. I will go into the matter further from the point of view I have indicated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule:
  Amendment of the Special Constables Act, 1923, made by Regulation 40AB of the said Regulations.
  Section four of the Special Constables Act, 1923, shall have effect as if the words "of or exceeding the age of eighteen years" were substituted for the words "of or exceeding the age of twenty years."
  7.20 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD VISCOUNT TRENCHARD moved to leave out the reference to Regulation
  360
  40 AB. The noble Viscount said: I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept my Amendment after the facts which I am going to give him. Let me say in the first place that I know that The Special Constables Act, 1923, relates only to Scotland. I will come to that point at the end of the few words I want to say to the Committee. The Act I have mentioned was amended to reduce the age at which special constables should be taken on from 20 to 18. In England this was done by an Order in Council. When the age was reduced from 20 to 18 I did not like it then, and I like it less almost nine months after the war is over. It was perhaps necessary during the war, but we now live under totally different conditions. I know something about the special constabulary.
  The special constabulary in peace time comes out for emergency, for special occasions, perhaps at such a call as a great fire. But the special constables who are now being used are being used because of the shortage of police. This is occurring daily all over the place, and it is a very different thing from the use of these men for a special occasion to relieve the regular police and enable the regular police to deal with a difficulty. Let the Committee reflect that men of 18 are little more than boys. The Lord Chancellor may be able to say that the regular police are also taken on at 18; but that is an entirely different matter, they go to colleges, and their training takes some time. The special constables on the other hand are called out at once for emergencies or to fill a gap. I say that it is bad for the life of the nation and for their own lives in the future that they should come up against the sordid side of life at the age of 18 to 20. I am not going into details, but I know and many of your Lordships know the facts which could be adduced in support of what I am saying. The experience does not do them any good.
  There is another point to which I would like just to refer. The Lord Chancellor no doubt will refer me to what is said in the commencement of the Act, that there is power to revoke it, but I maintain that there is no need whatever to continue this legislation to-day in Scotland. Here I must refer for a moment and with great diffidence to the fact that what I am moving to delete refers only to Scotland

  361
  and not to England. I am well aware that it is limited in that way. I hope the Committee will forgive me, because this is a complicated legal business, and I am very far from being what has been described earlier this afternoon as a legal gladiator. As I understand the position, the Act in Scotland laid down the age of 20 and under, whereas in England no limit was laid down at all by legislation, but it was introduced by an Order in Council and became regulated in that way. In the years of peace before the war the age was over 20. Now we have this Emergency Act relating to Scotland which we are being asked to agree to continue for two more years. It does not relate to England and Wales and people may say therefore, "Why raise the age in Scotland and not in England?" If we raise the age in Scotland we ought-to balance the matter in England and Wales by the introduction of an Order in Council to do the same thing.
  I do ask the Lord Chancellor to refer this to the Home Office with a view to having an Order in Council relating to England and Wales to carry out the same point which I am pressing for in Scotland. I feel very strongly on this matter. I have seen a certain amount of this special constabulary work in years gone by, and there is no reason for this very early age of recruitment under present conditions.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, leave out lines 9 to 13.—(Viscount Trenchard.)
  LORD SALTOUN: I wish to support my noble and gallant friend. This is not a Party matter, and I should be very sorry at this late hour in the evening to wave the Scottish flag round my head. But I look upon the Union of England and Scotland as probably the most purely creditable business to both of them in all their history, and I should like to see it closer still.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Like Bailie Nicol Jarvie.
  LORD SALTOUN: But we do have a curious position here if we are going to be told that because there is an Order in Council in England therefore Scotland must have what I believe would be a permanent statutory provision under this Bill—a provision which cannot be defended on any other ground except that England has the Order in Council. I
  362
  think that that is a peculiar position, and I do not feel that noble Lords sitting opposite would want to support it. I have myself been at different times, over a period of thirty-eight years, a special constable, and I have served both in England and Scotland. I know what arduous and difficult work a special constable may be called upon to do. I have been on point duty myself, and I have known young lads of twenty put upon it I have also known of such young lads having to arrest a dangerous murderer. They have also had to patrol roads picketed by strikers in times of civil disturbance.
  My experience is that the duties which fall upon special constables are very difficult and very trying even for lads of twenty. If it is argued that the need to increase the numbers is so great that we must now recruit at the age of 18, then I would submit in answer that it is far better to have a reliable force which is, perhaps, too small, rather than to have a force which is partially unreliable, even though it may be larger, and with elements which may cause civil disturbance with serious consequences. The untried boy of 18 is an enigma, even to himself, and it is not fair to put him to tasks that even a young man of twenty is really too young to perform except under very careful supervision. I feel very strongly on this point, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us that something may be done to meet our views in this matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as the law is concerned, I may say that it has been most admirably stated by the two noble Lords who have preceded me. It is the fact that under the law of Scotland, until it was altered by Defence Regulations, the minimum age for appointing a special constable was 20, and the minimum age for appointing an ordinary constable was 18. Under the law of England the minimum age has been 18, so that by making the age for Scotland 18, for special constables, we are merely doing what is already the case in England, and what is already the case in Scotland as applied to the ordinary police force. That, the noble and gallant Viscount has stated quite accurately. Whether or not anything in the way of training such as is given at the Police College at Hendon—of which no one has better knowledge than the noble and

  363
  gallant Viscount—is given in Scotland I am not sure. I rather believe that there is not anything in the nature of such a College. Lord Trenchard no doubt knows. But I had thought that the distinction between the apparent illogicality of having 18 as the minimum age for the regular police and 20 for the special constables hardly applied in the case of regular police going to a college for training.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I am, of course, relying only on my memory, but I believe that whereas the regular police in Scotland go through a course of training of the sort that is given at Peel House, London, there is not a Police College such as we have at Hendon. I do not say that in every little town there is similar training to that given at Peel House, but I believe that it is so in the cases of the big towns such as Edinburgh and Glasgow. The police recruits all go through a thorough training.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble and gallant Viscount. I did not know if there was something analogous to the Hendon College in Scotland but I did not think that there was. When the age limit was reduced to eighteen, Chief Constables were advised to use the power to appoint men under twenty with very great discretion, to have careful regard to the duty for which they were to be used, and only to employ them in special circumstances, keeping them so far as possible under their own direct supervision. At the present time, the whole subject of the post-war reorganisation of the police is receiving attention.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I interrupt to make the point that in peacetime these young men would have all sorts of difficult and unpleasant matters such as corrupt practices to deal with? In war-time they came up against bombing and fires—matters with which they were capable of dealing. They would not be by any means so capable of dealing with the sort of tasks which would confront them in peace-time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What we want to do if the occasion arises—which I hope it will not—is to use these young men in accordance with what we believe is the right principle—which as the noble
  364
  Viscount has remarked, has not always been observed. We say that these young men ought to be put on ordinary duties like traffic duties, so as to relieve the more experienced men for more difficult duties. That, I would suggest, is the ideal system, if you have to employ the boys at all. It is not necessary for anyone to argue with me that a young lad of 20 is better for this work than a boy of 18. Of course, I quite accept that proposition. And I would go further than that and say that a young man of 25 is probably better than one of 20. I do not think I would go beyond that. If you have got to have these boys—and it must be remembered that this is a troublous age in which we live—the right thing to do, obviously, is to put them on the simple duties to relieve the experienced men so that they may carry out the more complex duties. That is a very elementary piece of organization.
  I am certain that if the noble Viscount had anything to do with such matters in Scotland he would see that organization on those lines was carried out just as he saw it carried out in the old days here. In the consideration which is being given to the post-war organization of the police, it is probable—I do not put it higher than that—that Chief Constables will be advised not to appoint men under 20 save in very exceptional circumstances, as, for example, where a man has special aptitude or special qualifications. But, subject to that, it is probable that the Order that will go out will be on those lines. Further than that I cannot go. We want to put Scotland on a level with England—or shall I say England on a level with Scotland?—and therefore we want to have the right to appoint these young fellows special constables in Scotland as in England at the age of 18. But we propose that that power to go down so low should be used very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
  LORD SALTOUN: I would like, if I may, to add one Ming. In view of the lateness of the hour, I did not say a number of things which I could have done, but what I want to emphasize is that should an emergency crop up and things become really bad, that will be just the time when you are going to be tempted to bring in these young boys of 18. And that is just when you would be very much better without them. I feel

  365
  that this would be very unfair to these boys. Even in my own experience—and others of your Lordships have had the same experience—I have been brought to realize the possibility of these young fellows being put on to very difficult tasks. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord's expectation that they would always be kept on simple duties is likely to be realized. That is one reason why I am hoping that simply because there is an Order in Council—which I do not like—in England, we shall now make a bad Statute for Scotland to correspond with it.
  VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: The noble and learned Lord has said that orders are being issued not to take on youths under the age of twenty except in very special cases. There are 60,000 regular police, I believe, and there is a shortage, I understand, of something in the neighbourhood of 10,000.
  Are they going to fill that shortage by these? If they are, then I say that I must press this question to a Division. I am very sorry, but I feel very strongly that we are dealing with this shortage in the wrong way.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot say more than I have done. That we shall give these instructions is probable, but
  366
  I cannot say, on the spur of the moment, how the vacancies in the police force are going to be filled. Obviously, if I had known that the noble Viscount was going to ask that question, I should have obtained the information.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1946.
Regulations dated February 4, 1946, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War Time Registration) Acts, 1943 and 1944, the Representation of the People Act, 1945, and the Elections and Jurors Act, 1945:
Laid before the Home (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fourth Report by the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.