Sitting of 29 January 1946

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Deramore—Took the Oath.

R.A.F. DEMOBILIZATION COMPLAINTS.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Air a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to instances of dissatisfaction in Royal Air Force stations in the East, and whether they have any statement to make.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT STANSGATE): My Lords, I will, with your permission, make a statement about the recent instances of dissatisfaction at Royal Air Force stations in the East. The facts are that incidents have occurred at twelve stations. I am glad to say that at eleven stations men have returned to duty, and I have just received a signal to say that at the twelfth station they are returning to duty tomorrow. I have personally examined,
2
or the Prime Minister has personally examined, the reports of the Commanding Officers about the complaints of the men at these stations and I am satisfied that the detailed points raised by the men are being most adequately and carefully dealt with in every case. The fullest and most up-to-date information is being sent out to all Royal Air Force stations in the form of a special series of signals called Demobforms and is being amplified in personal signals to the Commanders-in-Chief, dealing with complaints voiced by the men on this occasion.
The main and natural concern of the men is, however, with the general rate of demobilization. Their desire to return home and to civilian life will be understood and sympathized with by all members of the House. But if we are to secure the fruits of victory we must carry out the commitments we have undertaken in all parts of the world. These commitments, which are essential to future peace, inevitably throw heavy burdens on all the Services, and they deserve our gratitude for bearing them. The Government needs no reminder of the urgency of the maximum acceleration of demobilization. For some time now a special inquiry has been afoot into the possibility of more rapid and extensive reductions in the Forces and the result will be announced as soon as the inquiry is completed.
In the meanwhile, I take this opportunity to emphasize that the general rate of demobilization from the three Services taken together has not been slowed up since the end of the year and the Royal

3
Air Force is abreast of the other Services. The particular number released in any given month may vary within fairly narrow limits—rather fewer men will be released from the Royal Air Force in February than either January or March, for example. But the general rate of some 100,000 men a week from the three Services is being maintained. Some men in the Royal Air Force have evidently received the impression that there has been a slowing up in the rate of release. This is no doubt because fewer groups are being released each month than before the end of last year; but this is accounted for by the fact that the Royal Air Force release groups now being reached are almost twice as large as the earlier release groups. Therefore the release of each group now means the demobilization of something like double the number of men. To deal with the tremendous task of demobilizing millions of men and women it is essential to follow a definite plan which does sometimes involve some local and sectional hardship. But the inequality of release between trades, inevitable in a Technical Service like the Royal Air Force has steadily decreased, and the numbers whose release is delayed behind the normal now represent about 3 per cent. of the whole.
The facts about demobilization are being fully and regularly explained to the men and I attach the greatest importance to the use of this machinery of information. It will naturally be used to keep the Forces abreast of the plans which are being made to accelerate release. Refusals of duty on the part of any units can only slow down the accelerated release we all want to achieve. I must make it quite clear that there will be no concession to indiscipline. If men undertake the unwarrantable step of refusing duty, this can only result in disciplinary action. Proper channels exist for the statement of grievances. These channels are fully open.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount if he is aware of the fact that there are officers, to my certain knowledge, who have served in His Majesty's Forces as privates, gunners and so forth, who were due for demobilization in the middle of December when the other ranks were demobilized, but who are to-day, six or seven weeks after,
4
awaiting demobilization from abroad, and who have no chance of coming home?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have no particular knowledge of the situation in the Army, but in my reply I did refer to the heavy burden laid on all Services in the necessarily ordered progress of demobilization.
LORD SHERWOOD: May I ask if the noble Viscount will clear up with the Press the question whether this is a strike or whether it is a mutiny? I think it is a very serious matter that the statement is being put about that these are strikes which anyone might join. Mutiny is a much more serious matter, and the knowledge that it is mutiny might deter serious minded men from joining in.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have been able to tell the House that the twelve incidents that have occurred have now all ended, and I do not think I need say anything further that might possibly have the result of disturbing feeling. We hope that the quiet will continue.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WARTIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL.
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I feel I am entitled to say that it is largely a non-contentious measure. The Bill deals with buildings erected during the war by private individuals or by or on behalf of the Government for the purposes of the prosecution of the war. They were erected on Crown land, or on land acquired by the Crown under war-time legislation, or upon the land of private persons, usually a manufacturing company. In this war, even more than in the last, because of the need for widely dispersed production and greatly increased output, buildings were erected which may have violated, in one respect or another, various Building Acts or planning controls.
It may be supposed that in normal peace-time conditions the local authorities, which are empowered to ensure that the provisions of such Statutes as the Public Health Acts, the Town and Country Planning Acts, or the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, and so forth,

5
are observed, would have taken steps to see that newly erected buildings did not contravene such provisions. During the war, in circumstances which are familiar to all of us, the local authorities did not exercise their legal rights and, through no fault of theirs, those legal rights have now lapsed. It is broadly true to say that after twelve months local authorities cannot enforce the Public Health Acts except by resorting to costly proceedings in the High Court. This Bill proposes to restore to local authorities the right of having it determined whether a contravention of the law has taken place, notwithstanding that the ordinary remedy may have been barred by lapse of time. There will, I feel sure, be general agreement that it is both reasonable and desirable that this should be done, both in the public interest and in the interest of proper planning, so that war-time buildings may be made subject to review in the light of statutory requirements and so that where, under existing Statutes, enforcement of building law must take place within a certain time, the war period shall not be reckoned in calculating that time.
It will hardly be necessary to urge upon this House that many of the buildings and works to which this Bill, when it becomes law, will apply are extremely valuable. During the war some of the Supply Departments, notably the Ministry of Aircraft Production, had considerable manufacturing work done by companies on premises belonging to those companies. Where a manufacturing company enlarged its premises in order to complete its war contracts, it might do so at the cost of its shareholders, or by raising new capital, or by loans from its bankers, or it might do so with money advanced by the Government Department interested in the execution of its contracts. In fact, a substantial amount of the taxpayers' money was advanced in this way to manufacturers. It is undesirable that these buildings should be demolished for what are not sufficiently serious reasons, or that any great outlay should be incurred in altering them where they need alteration to conform to the law. At this stage it is impossible to lay down a general rule as to how such cases shall be dealt with; each must be dealt with locally upon its merits, subject to a right of appeal to the Minister of Health.
6
As your Lordships are aware, under the general law the Crown is not bound by a Statute unless the Statute expressly provides for it. In practice, in normal peacetime conditions the Ministry of Works and other Government Departments concerned with buildings do, as a matter of good administration, consult freely with the local authorities in these matters. It is obvious that during the war such consultation was often impossible, but, as I have said, the general position is that Crown buildings are exempt and if the Crown disposes of property not complying with the ordinary law, the purchaser is also exempt. Under this Bill, the Crown exemption will not continue to apply to war-time buildings which are sold by the Government or leased for a period of not less than ten years. The central principle at which the whole Bill is aimed is that doubts about the legal status of a war-time building or work are to be set at rest by some speedy and generally acceptable machinery, in order that the commercial life of the country may continue without unnecessary risk that a local authority or a private person will take belated action to have a building pulled down or altered.
It is not right that the legal status of a property should be left in doubt indefinitely. The Government propose, therefore, that a five-year limit be placed upon the time during which the fate of any war-time building can be decided in the light of post-war circumstances. During the five-year period, which will commence when this Bill becomes law, application can be made to have it determined whether the building does or does not comply with the law. If it does not, it can then be decided whether or not the building should be treated as if it did comply, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the local authority may think expedient. The initiative in making application is with those interested in the building, the owner or occupier, or those desiring to purchase it; but the local authority itself can prevent delay by taking steps to enforce the law as soon as it has made up its mind regarding the building. As you will realize, the local authority itself will have an interest, in its capacity as rating authority and because it desires the employment of its people, in the continuance of buildings which may, on some grounds, particularly that of good planning, be open to

7
objection. The Bill therefore provides, in the difficult case of a contravention of the Town and Country Planning Acts, that the Minister of Town and Country Planning may require cases to be referred to the Minister of Health, notwithstanding that the local authority is willing that a particular building shall remain. The Bill also provides that where there is disagreement between an interested party and the local authority, an appeal can be made to the Minister of Health.
It may be asked, "Why the Minister of Health? "Some of the cases which may arise for decision under the Bill might, if the ordinary law had been left to take its course, have come for decision to the Minister of Health; others to the Minister of Town and Country Planning or to the Minister of Transport, while others, again, could in the event of a dispute have been decided by the Courts alone. Thus the owner might have had to go to three different Government Departments and to the Courts as well before obtaining a decision as to the legality of his building. The Government have decided that the most practical course in the interests of all concerned is to have all these cases determined by the Minister of Health, upon the dual grounds that perhaps the majority of those which might have arisen under the ordinary law could by agreement have been brought to the Minister of Health and that under the similar legislation which was passed in the last war the Local Government Board, whose powers have been passed to the Ministry of Health, acquired some experience in dealing with questions similar to those which will arise under this Bill.
I have covered the main purpose of the Bill, which is unavoidably technical. It seeks to remedy a real problem which has arisen out of war-time action, and to remedy it in a fair, reasonable and practical way. It is a necessary Bill, as was stated by the spokesman of the Opposition in another place. It is not, I think, a controversial Bill. I therefore invite your Lordships to give it your approval, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,—(Lord Henderson.)
2.52 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord has placed the case for this Bill before your Lordships in a very clear and straightforward manner. I rise simply to say that so far as those who sit on these Benches are concerned, I think we are quite safe in accepting the noble Lord's assurance that it is quite non-controversial. We do not wish to do anything, therefore, to oppose the passage of the Bill at this stage. In the quite appropriate rush and hurry of the war, many by-laws and local authority rights and obligations were naturally disregarded, and it is obvious that time will be required to straighten these matters out. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, time must be allowed unless quite unnecessary expense and losses are to be brought about. It is possible that there may be one or two points that we shall desire to raise at a later stage, but they are comparatively of a minor character, and I do not think it is necessary to weary your Lordships with them now.
2.54 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a very important Bill on a very important and technical subject. It is said to be necessary. I for my part should not care to give it the completely unqualified welcome which a completely non-controversial Bill should have. I am not proposing to-day to go into the details of such a technical and complicated subject. There are, however, some points in this Bill which I will go so far as to say are absolutely necessary, and therefore I would ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading to-day; at the same time, there are some points on which I think the Bill could be improved, and I reserve my right to raise them on the Committee stage.
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has just said with reference to this Bill. It is, of course, technical, but it is important. The point about which I should like to be satisfied, if not now then at some future stage, is the precise position where the person who erects works on land has done so with the complete knowledge of the local authority, and in many cases with their assistance in many ways, but has inadvertently not complied with the building laws or with one of the other

9
laws which have been so clearly referred to. What is his position if under Clause 1 the authority choose to take steps to point out that these works have been improperly erected or carried out? Under that clause, they have been given the right to object. My own feeling is that in many of those cases, where the local authority have in effect known all about it, or have actively consented, there should be a great deal of consideration given to the position of the man who has spent, it may be, large sums of money on those works; and I am not satisfied—and this is the point to which I should like attention to be drawn before the matter comes up at a later stage—that Clause 2 (3) entirely covers that case.
As I read subsection (3) of Clause 2, it looks very much as if that applies only if an application is made with respect to any land for enforcing any building law. I am not quite sure what happens if the application is not made. I am inclined to think that in that case the unfortunate owner does not know, it may be for five years, what his position is. It is conceivable that something might be added to the Bill to enable the owner of the land to insist upon the matter being dealt with, and dealt with under terms which I think should include a provision by which, if the local authority have, so to speak, become a party in some sense to the erection of the building or the construction of the works, no complaint should be made. At present I am not aware how many people are concerned, and how many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in erecting these works, but my sympathy is very much with the building owner who has quite inadvertently done something which he ought to have been told was wrong. I invite the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill to see whether he is satisfied that the matters to which I have referred are in fact properly dealt with.
2.59 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have no desire to oppose the giving of a Second Reading to this Bill, but there is a point on which I think that I may want to put an Amendment down when we come to the Committee stage. I have read Clause 2 a number of times, and I find myself quite unable to understand what the real relationship be-
10
tween the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Health is going to be under that clause. It has been represented to me by the Royal Institute of British Architects that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning ought to have a say in a matter where planning questions are concerned, and I think it may be necessary to ask your Lordships to look at an Amendment to clarify that situation. I have done my best to understand the clause as it stands, and it certainly seems very involved and difficult. That is all that I want to say at this stage, but I thought that I had better say on Second Reading that there is a matter which gives rise to misgivings in quarters which have a right to be heard on the subject.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL.
3.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Whether we like it or not, we are living in an age when there is bound to be a great deal of what is called subordinate legislation, that is to say, rules and so on made under Acts of Parliament. For my part I take the view that it behaves us to see that we have the proper machinery to secure that Parliamentary control is effective, and that by the present machinery, machinery which is either by a negative Resolution or an affirmative Resolution, Parliament keeps a really adequate measure of control over subordinate legislation. This matter came up for consideration in the days of the Coalition Government, in connexion with the failure to lay the National Fire Service Regulations before Parliament, in the words which then were prevalent, "as soon as may be." At about the same time a Committee called the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, which was generally known as the Scrutinizing Committee had been considering the question of Parliamentary Control over Statutory Rules. This Committee published a Special Report in October, 1944, to which the Government gave very considerable

11
attention. A Bill was drafted but it was never actually introduced into either House of Parliament, either in the days of the Coalition or of the Caretaker Government. It is that Bill, which was substantially altered and modified to meet with the wishes of the Opposition as expressed during the Committee stage in another place, that I now introduce.
The long title of the Bill is:
"An Act to repeal the Rules Publication Act, 1893, and to make further provision as to the instruments by which statutory powers to make orders, rules, regulations and other subordinate legislation are exercised."
As the date indicates, it is some fifty years since the Rules Publication Act was passed, and it is high time that it came up for review. The present Bill does not reproduce Sections 1 and 2 of that Act. It does reproduce, with modifications and improvements, so much of the Act as relates to the publication of statutory rules. Section 1 of the Act of 1893 provides for what was called "antecedent publicity". At least forty days before certain statutory rules were made an advance notice had to be published in the Gazette. There was an exception enabling provisional rules to be made in urgent cases without such previous notice. These were provisional rules, not to be confused with provisional orders. This procedure applied to England, but not to Scotland—and Scotland, I may add, got on very well without it. It did not apply to any rules made by the Local Government Board, now the Ministry of Health, nor to rules made by the Board of Trade or the Treasury.
We think that that provision is quite obsolete to-day, having regard to the modern practice of discussion with trades associations and so on and the association of local government authorities who were, I think, concerned about this point. Although the Bill was closely canvassed in another place, no one, I think—and the Committee contained a great many experts—suggested that we should maintain this provision of the Act of 1893. I gather—and indeed I have had notification—that one of your Lordships is rather disturbed about this matter and all I will say now is that this is a matter which we can look into when the Committee stage is reached.
The Bill is primarily a Bill to bring up to date the rules of publication, but, of course, it has other provisions. In the
12
first place it deals with the question of terminology, winch has given rise to a good deal of confusion. In place of statutory rules, orders and so on, we propose to call them "statutory instruments." It may not be a very happy phrase, but I certainly think that it is a happier one than "chosen instruments" of which we have heard a good deal in another connexion. In future, all that will be necessary to bring into play the operation of this Bill is to provide in your Statute that subordinate legislation is to be by means of statutory instruments. Then the Bill reproduces, in Clauses 2, 7 and 12, the provisions of the Rules Publication Act relating to the publication of statutory rules, so as to secure that all these instruments are readily available to members of the public and to those who have occasion to use them. We have added something which is new in Clause 3, something which was not in the Bill as it was prepared in the Coalition days, in order to clarify the law on the subject of criminal liability for offences committed at a time when the relevant document had not been published. That is a provision which I think will meet with general approval. In substance, if a man is accused of an offence at a time before the printer has produced a copy of the regulation, you can only bring home the offence to him if you can prove affirmatively that he had knowledge by reason of reading the newspapers or listening to the wireless, or something of that kind, of the enactment of the legislation in question.
The machinery of Parliamentary control over statutory instruments is improved in two respects. First of all the Bill improves, in respect of instruments required to be laid before Parliament, on that time-honoured phrase, "as soon as may be." What "as soon as may be" means, frankly, I do not know. We do away with that very vague language, and your Lordships will see that Clause 4 of the Bill provides that an instrument is to be laid before it comes into operation. To that there is a proviso that if it is essential that the instrument should come into operation before copies can be laid, then the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker in the House of Commons are to be notified, so that they can take the appropriate steps to bring the matter to the notice of their respective Houses. Clauses 5 to 7 deal with another of the Committee's

13
recommendations by providing for a standard period of forty days, discounting prorogations, dissolutions or adjournments of both Houses for more than four days, within which a negative Resolution may be moved. Existing legislation contains a variety of periods, sometimes twenty or twenty-one and sometimes forty days, and there are varying periods in between. The effect of these provisions will be to shorten and simplify the drafting of future statutory provisions conferring power to legislate by subordinate legislation. It will be enough in the future to provide that the power is to be exercised by statutory instrument and that the instrument shall be laid before Parliament. I do not suggest that this is a Bill of the greatest importance but it does contain modest improvements and I think that it is a useful measure. I commend it to your Lordships and I hope you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.11 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think that we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the explanation he has given us of this measure. I am one of those who was, perhaps, responsible in a period of some twenty months for as many regulations as any other man when I occupied the position of Minister of Food, but I am one of those who inherently dislikes legislating by statutory rule and order. I must say that during my tenure of that office I myself was very careful to look at all the statutory orders we made before they were issued because I believe that you cannot have it done too far down the line. I was rather horrified—the Press announcement may be wrong—to see that although an order made by the Director General of Ordnance Factories applying to Royal Ordnance Factories (presumably he was empowered to do so by the then Minister of Supply), was revoked, a large number of workmen at Woolwich Arsenal were prosecuted for breach of an order which had ceased to exist. A number of them were fined and I believe that at least two were, unfortunately, sent to prison. Now, quite rightly, the Home Secretary is making ex-gratia payments to these people and having the fines refunded to others.
14
But that does show, I think very vividly, the dangers you are running into if you have too much legislation, not by Act of Parliament, but by these Orders in Council, because Courts cannot, with great respect to the noble and learned Law Lords I see in this House and to the Lord Chancellor, keep pace with the mass of statutory rules and orders issued from Government Departments. Counsel and solicitors certainly cannot either. They are not brought to the notice of the Courts and unfortunately we get cases of that kind. The sooner we can get back to doing the greater part of our legislation by actual Act of Parliament which has been locked at word by word by both Houses of Parliament, by which we get the necessary publication in the Press, the better the country will be served and the better I shall be pleased.
In regard to this particular Bill it is obviously necessary for a time—at any rate it will be for a Ministry like the Ministry of Food to go on from time to time, especially with its Price Control Orders, not bringing them, of course, before Parliament each time; for example, with an Order for the control of the price of onions which ought not to occupy the time or attention of Parliament. So long as that kind of order is necessary so long of course we shall have to have some of these orders, and more, perhaps, than many of us would like. I think this Bill makes provision for consolidation on this matter and for clarifying the procedure. There are, however, one or two matters which it may well be necessary, having looked further at this Bill, to bring to the attention of the House at later stages in the proceedings.
For myself I cannot quite understand how the proviso in Clause 4 can go hand in hand with Clause 3 (2) because the proviso in Clause 4 says that provided that if it is essential that any such instrument should come into operation before copies thereof can be laid before the Houses of Parliament, the instrument may be made so as to come into operation before it has been so laid. If it is impossible to get it printed and laid before the Houses of Parliament, I do not see how it can be very effective from the point of view of enforcement because if that has happened surely the wretched subject who may have offended against it may have a good "get-out," as I

15
think he should have, under Clause 3 (2) to which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has referred. Some points, such as that it might well be advisable to look into at a later stage, but at this stage, so far as I and those who immediately sit with me are concerned, we certainly shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.18 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this is an unattractive form of legislation but I think we ought to realize that under present conditions it has probably got to be resorted to. At the same time I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord on the Woolsack to one point. The tendency has grown up in recent years, side by side with the tendency to increase the number of orders, to include a provision that they shall not be susceptible of consideration by the Courts. The obvious way to get rid of that objectionable paragraph is not to put it in, but you cannot always guard against that and I should like the noble Lord to consider whether it would be possible to put it not in a negative form, but in a positive form in this Bill, and to say that all orders made shall, if necessary, be subject to the consideration of the Courts of Law and that they shall not escape by the device of inserting what I regard as objectionable words.
3.19 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I have a very few remarks to make but I should like to refer to a point already touched upon by the Lord Chancellor. These statutory instruments have grown in number very considerably during the war and it is clear, I think, that the numbers will continue to grow in the future owing to pressure of business before Parliament. It is, therefore, I suggest, extremely important that they should be as practical as possible for those who have the task of carrying them into effect and also as helpful as possible for those whose lives are going to be affected by them. Conditions do differ very greatly in the country and among different classes of people. It is also important to note, as has been observed, that these orders once made cannot be amended as other Bills can before this House and the other House. So that I would suggest
16
we should follow the principle that before the proposed instrument is made all persons likely to be affected by it shall have the fullest possible opportunity of ascertaining the terms of the order and of making representations to the authority concerned and having those representations considered.
It is important that this principle should be embodied in the Bill itself, although I am very well aware of the fact that Government Departments do, at any rate, consult some of those concerned, hut, if it is in the Bill, it is a protection for everybody. So I would ask that at the Committee stage a new clause should be inserted to provide that notice of the proposal of the statutory instrument shall be published either in the London Gazette or in such other way as the Department concerned may consider necessary, to bring it to the notice of the persons concerned for a prescribed period before the instrument itself is actually made, and that during that period any person affected by the draft instrument may obtain copies of it and make representations to the Government Department for consideration before its terms are finally settled. This, as the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has pointed out, does restore in effect the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of the Rules of Publication Act, 1893, which itself is repealed by Clause 12 of this Bill. I would add that these suggestions have the support both of the Association of Municipal Corporations and of the Law Society.
3.23 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Arlington has saved me from the necessity of explaining a point to your Lordships which I was going to make, because he has put it with great clarity and I hope it will receive the benevolent attention of the Lord Chancellor. I only want to add this: My noble friend in his concluding remarks mentioned the Association of Municipal Corporations as being interested in this matter. I have also had a letter to say that the Council of the Law Society entirely supports the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I think it must appeal to all your Lordships that there should be antecedent publicity for legislation and I hope the noble Lord will see his way to amend the Bill when we come to the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to say I support the noble Lords who have just addressed your Lordships on this particular point.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DOCK WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (REPEAL) BILL.
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read:
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, this Bill is a machinery Bill to help us give effect to the general proposals which were discussed in the House on December 19, and your Lordships will remember that these were subsequently set out in the White Paper. There are three sets of States in question, the Straits Settlements, which consist of Singapore, Penang, Malacca and the various islands. Then there are the Federated Malay states, Perak, Selangor, and two others, and the Non-Federated States—five of them—and it is proposed in the scheme of operations that they should be united into one State known as the Malayan Union and, except in the case of Singapore, this Bill is necessary in order to give effect to the proposals in respect of the Straits Settlements. The scheme with regard to the Federated Malay States and the Un-federated States, as it is described in the White Paper Cmd. 6724, can be brought together under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, but with regard to the Straits Settlements this Bill is necessary in order to achieve that purpose. There are many advantages in this scheme, and I think I need not repeat to-day the description which I gave of them in our previous discussion. It will provide for the consolidation of services and development of social and economic schemes for the whole area without a multiplicity of States and Unions in respect of such matters as education, currency, taxes, aviation, post, telegraphs, shipping and many other
18
common services which can be developed throughout the whole area under the one administrative machine.
There are very important safeguards with regard to citizenship which I remember was a point some of your Lordships mentioned with considerable earnestness in our previous discussion. It is suggested—I repeat this although of course it is not in this Bill—that persons born in the Union or those who have resided there for ten years out of the last fifteen years, not counting the war period, shall become citizens of the Malayan Union, but in deference to representations made by the Rulers it was provided also with regard to those who claim citizenship by virtue of their being resident for ten years out of fifteen that they must now take an Oath of Allegiance. That was an additional safeguard inserted in response to the request of the Malayan Rulers, and the safeguards for the Malays—the land reservation policy and so on—will be continued in future. There is one point—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord this question? It is an important point, otherwise I would not interrupt him. Is it proposed that Japanese should obtain citizenship under this Constitution, because if so there would be very strong opposition to that? Will any provision be made to stop that?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The provision as it stands is that a person who has been continuously resident for ten years out of the past fifteen shall be entitled to claim citizenship, but he will be required to take an Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty. Your Lordships are aware that a very large proportion of, shall we say, alien persons in the district have not resided there continuously for ten out of the last fifteen years. In the case of persons of Japanese origin, I have not had the question put to me before, but I will inquire into it. In any case they would require to take an Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty even if they complied with the other provisions. I will make further inquiry into the point made by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I rather understood there was a recent decision given whereby the Japanese would not be tolerated in Malaya any more.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I sincerely hope that that is so! I cannot say anything to the noble Lord except that I will inquire into the position and I will give an answer when we come to a later stage of the Bill. But with regard to—
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: This is rather important, and I should be very grateful if, when the noble Lord has been good enough to make inquiries—because this point has been put to him at a moment's notice—he would inform either me or my noble friend Lord Elibank of the result, and we can then consider whether it would be necessary to put down any Amendment on this point before the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly do so. I shall be only too glad to inform the noble Lords as soon as I know myself. I have no desire whatever to avoid the point. It is entirely new. So far as I am concerned the citizenship which requires ten years residence clearly will only apply to people who are bona-fide residents. I will, however, proceed as I am requested to by the noble Lord in that matter.
Some point was raised, I remember, in December as to the separation of Singapore. I think there is an overwhelming case at the beginning for treating Singapore separately, as is proposed. It is a great city, mainly employed in overseas trade. It is quite different from the mainland and its interests are quite different from the Malayan interests which predominate in the mainland. It is largely a Chinese city, and I am quite sure that at the beginning it will be better that the Malayan Union should not be overshadowed by the incorporation of Singapore. That is a very strong case for proceeding as we propose. The administration of the territory will be by an Executive Council and a Legislative Council. It is proposed that the Municipal Council of Singapore (with suitable extension of its powers, and so on) shall be continued, but there will require to be, I understand, some considerable amendments with respect to the scope of the municipality's authority, particularly as affecting the rural areas which were previously included. That, however, will be the subject of future adjustment.
Another point that was raised in our previous debate, and into which I made
20
careful inquiry, was, the arrangement made with regard to the Rulers of the different States. I am glad to report that alt the Rulers have agreed cordially to this scheme and entered into treaties with His Majesty's Government accordingly. Provisions have been made whereby each Ruler will preside over a Malayan Advisory Council in his own State, and they will have particular duties with regard to safeguarding the Mahomedan religion and the institutions connected with it. There will be also be a Central Malayan Advisory Council of the Rulers, meeting periodically under the Governor to deal with matters of that kind. Also I should add that the residences and estates as well as the incomes of the Rulers are safeguarded under the treaties.
The machinery of Government proposed for the whole area is that there will be a Governor of the Malayan Union and of Singapore. There will be an Executive and a Legislative Council in each area, apart from the local councils to which I have already referred. I think it is right that I should say here that in framing these proposals and in negotiating the agreements with the Rulers, we are enormously indebted to Sir Harold MacMichael for his negotiations and for what he has done to bring this about. It clearly will make for the development of the whole of this area in a comprehensive way. I confess that I myself know very little personally about this area, and from what little I do know I am filled with amazement and admiration at Sir Harold MacMichael's skill, diplomacy and the friendliness with which he has enabled all these different agreements with the various Rulers to be negotiated.
It might perhaps be of interest to your Lordships if I took, this opportunity of announcing those whom we propose to appoint to these important posts—namely, the Governor-General of the Union and of Singapore, the Governor of the Malayan Union and the Governor of the Colony of Singapore. We propose to appoint as Governor-General Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, who, for some years, has been our High Commissioner in Ottawa. I think it is difficult to imagine a more suitable appointment. I know from first hand, both from Mr. Mackenze King and his colleagues in the Canadian Government and otherwise, that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has really established a

21
unique record as High Commissioner in one of our Dominions, and I cannot think of anybody in the public service anywhere who would be more suitable for this post. It is proposed that, the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Malayan Union shall be Sir G. Edward Gent, who has been Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office, and that the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of Singapore shall be Mr. F. C. Gimson, at present Colonial Secretary in Hong Kong. I thought perhaps your Lordships would be interested to know who were suggested for appointment to these important posts.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will you repeat the name of the Governor of Singapore? I did not quite catch it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Mr. F. C. Gimson, who has been Colonial Secretary at Hong Kong. Finally, to revert to one of my opening sentences, I may say that although I have, with your Lordships' permission and I think in accordance with the traditions of this House, rather exceeded the bounds of order in speaking generally, this Bill is part of a whole. It relates only to the Straits Settlements, the Union of the other Malay States being possible, as explained in the White Paper, by authorities exercised under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. But I thought it was only right, in presenting this Bill, which deals only with the Straits Settlements, to present, at any rate in summary, a picture of the whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison.)
3.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like—and I am sure I shall have the agreement of the whole House in this—to thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for the very full statement which he has made, and for the extremely interesting information which he has given us. In particular, I should like, at the very outset of my remarks, warmly to welcome the news that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald is to be the new Governor-General of the Malayan Union. As your hardships know, during my time at the Dominions Office I had long personal experience of Mr. Mac-Donald's ability and experience, and the fundamental wisdom which he has always
22
shown in Canada, and I cannot imagine a better appointment for this very important post. I would also like to welcome the news of the appointment of Sir Edward Gent. I have also had to work with him, and I, as everyone else who has done so, have the highest respect for his ability.
I do not intend to trouble the House at any great length this afternoon with regard to the wide issues raised by this Bill. I say this, not because it is a Bill of a minor character. On the contrary, in one sense it a very important Bill indeed, because it deals with the future of one of the most pre-eminent areas within the territories of the British Commonwealth and Empire, an area whose happiness and prosperity is a matter of the utmost moment, not only to the people of this country but to the peoples of the world. But this Bill is, in itself, as I understand it, only what may be termed a preliminary and preparatory measure. We are not asked specifically to approve the new structure which the Government propose to set up in the Malayan Union, as I gather it is now to be called; we are asked only to assist in preparing the ground, in sweeping away the old structure which is now shown to be out of date, and setting up a scaffolding to enable, the new structure to be built. The actual details—I hope I have understood this aright—will be incorporated in Orders in Council which will be produced in due course, I hope at an early date. These Orders in Council will undoubtedly require very careful scrutiny, and they will, I am sure, receive that scrutiny when the time comes.
Of course, it may be said that by approving this Bill we accept the fact that some simplification and reform of the present very complicated administrative machinery of Malaya is needed. That may be argued by the Government; and I believe it is quite true; I think it is common ground among all Parties that some such simplification is necessary. Indeed, the case has been stated with Undeniable force in the White Paper (Cmd. Paper 6724) to which the Leader of the House has referred. It is quite clear that the pre-war set-up is out of date and that it does not make for the maximum of efficiency. It may also, I think, be assumed that if we pass this Bill for its Second Reading we on this side of the House are not hostile to the broad

23
lines of reform which are laid down in the White Paper. That I believe to be true of the great majority of noble Lords in this House.
The White Paper, as we all know, is not a last-minute brain-wave of His Majesty's Government; it is the result of many months of careful thought and study, which began in the days of the National Government, even before the liberation of these territories from the hands of the Japanese. I understand from the Leader of the House, and I think it is actually stated in paragraph 3 of the White Paper, that the essential portions of the proposals have already been discussed with the Malayan Rulers and that general agreement has been reached on the broad principles. Therefore, this is not a matter on which there is, as I understand it, any violent difference of opinion in Malaya itself. But it is one thing to approve broad principles and another to approve detailed provisions as applied to individual territories. Here surely—I feel certain the Government will agree with this—Parliament has an important additional duty which must not be neglected.
That brings me to what I conceive to be the one considerable omission from the Bill which is now before the House. There is a provision for Orders in Council to give practical effect to the proposals contained in the White Paper, but there is no provision that those Orders in Council shall be laid upon the Table of this House. I can only believe that that omission is unintentional. I hope the Government will be able to give assurances that they will consider inserting an Amendment during the Committee stage which will ensure that these Orders in Council will in fact be laid before your Lordships before they are actually applied. It may be that we shall all be completely satisfied with the provisions as they are finally approved by the Government—I hope that that will be the case—but it is essential that the opportunity should be given to Parliament to consider the actual Orders in Council and to discuss them if it wishes to do so. I hope we shall have an assurance of that kind, and that the Government will be willing to put down an Amendment, because if they are not willing I am afraid we shall have to put down such an Amendment ourselves. It is surely absolutely essential that these Orders in Council
24
should be discussed by Parliament. As I understand it, we are not going to have a full debate on the proposals to-day, and indeed it would hardly be possible to do so because practical effect is going to be given to them only by Orders in Council, which probably are not yet in existence.
There is one other point I would make. We must all recognize that the details of far-reaching reforms of this character will require very careful thought and I am quite certain we shall not wish unduly to hustle the Government to produce these Orders in Council before they are ready, because that would be liable to produce avoidable friction in the territories themselves. Whatever scheme of reform is finally adopted, we want it to have the fullest chance of success. This is a case, like many others, where more haste would certainly mean less speed. However, that is, of course, a matter which is immediately for the Government. But we may fairly urge them to bear that aspect in mind. Subject to those two provisos, I personally do not see any reason why we should oppose the purpose of this Bill. I believe it is thoroughly sound and that the reforms are needed, and I hope the House, will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading.
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I think we all agree that considerable alterations and amendments had to be made to the Constitution of Malaya—I use the term collectively—after the war. We know, as my noble friend has said, that this was being investigated before the war and that during the war steps were taken to arrange that proposals for this Constitution should be put forward. It seems to me that what has been forgotten is that all these arrangements have been discussed inside the Colonial Office and elsewhere in this country without knowing the conditions which would be found in those territories. Nobody really knows what those conditions are to-day in Malaya and in Singapore, which are still under British Military Government, and necessarily so. For instance, as I came down to the House to-day I saw in the evening papers that nearly three quarters of the civilian population of Singapore was on strike. The noble Viscount who opened the debate told us nothing about that but I feel that we might have had a little account of

25
what was happening in that way. I mention this now because I think there are many problems in Malaya to-day which should be investigated before we actually apply the new Constitution there. I welcome the fact that Sir Harold MacMichael was so successful in his Mission; I think he must have used great powers of persuasion and great eloquence in his talks with the Sultans in Council to succeed as he did. But was that the proper time to have this talk? Would it not have been better to wait until things had settled down so that the Sultans could take a clearer view of what was happening?
My noble friend has said that we should consider what is contained in the Orders in Council when they come before the House, but in view of the fact that the noble Viscount has referred generally to the scheme which is going to brought into effect and that a White Paper has been issued on that scheme, I should like to refer to one or two points in it. First of all, in the short debate which took place in this House on December 19, I referred to the fact that there was a number of minorities in Malaya, and that the Chinese could hardly be called a minority. I said that unless some arrangement was made in the Constitution to enable minorities to be represented great unfairness might result. The noble Viscount opposite, in his reply, said:
"I think the noble Viscount knows enough about British ideals and methods of government to understand that it is not our policy to establish privileged minorities. We do not go in for that sort of thing."
He repeated that a little later. I venture to suggest that when you go to the Middle East and to the Far East you find that minorities exist and have to be recognised; you cannot get away from them. To what is our trouble in India due today? To the minorities—the Hindus and the Mahomedans. What will be our trouble in Ceylon, to which a new Constitution has just been granted? It will be the minorities. Under the new Constitution, the Singhalese have been placed in what amounts to full control of Ceylon. The minorities are objecting to that, and will continue to do so.
In Malaya there are large numbers of minorities. The noble Viscount did not give us the population of Malaya and of Singapore, but I am going to give those figures. In December, 1938, there were estimated to be in Malaya, including
26
Singapore, 5,278,866 persons. It is important to note that of that number the Chinese formed 2,220,000 and the Malays 2,210,000, so that the Malays are already in a minority in their own country. There were also 743,000 Indians, 28,000 Europeans and 30,000 aboriginals, who were there before the Malays arrived. There were also 18,000 Eurasians, 8,000 Japanese and 19,728 who were classified as "Miscellaneous." I do not know how many races they include. Those figures include Singapore. In 1931 the population of Singapore numbered 567,000. Of these, 422,000 were Chinese. There were 71,000 Malays, 51,000 Indians, 8,000 Europeans and 7,000 Eurasians. In 1938, however, the population of Singapore had risen to 720,000, of whom over 75 per cent. were Chinese.
It will be seen that there is something in my contention that unless we are careful we shall hand over Malaya and Singapore to the Chinese, and, instead of Malaya and Singapore becoming, as is suggested in this White Paper, a Dominion of the British Commonwealth, it will become a dominion of the Chinese Empire. I say with a full sense of responsibility that we cannot ignore the fact that in China to-day there is arising a very forceful cult in favour of making the East Chinese. Only last week five thousand students walked through Chungking shouting "We want Hong Kong! We want Hong Kong!" If this goes on, as a result of what we are doing to-day we shall, unless we are careful and provide for the rights of minorities in the area of which we are talking, find that the next cry in China will be "We want Malaya! We want Malaya!" It will be said that most of the people there are of Chinese origin.
I thought seriously about it before I said these words to-day, but I feel that it is necessary to say something of this kind in order to warn the Government of what we may be faced with and of what may happen not now but in the years ahead of us. When I look at the White Paper with regard to the appointment of the Executive and Legislative Councils, I find that in the interim stage there will be an Executive and a Legislative Council. This applies both to the Malayan Union and to Singapore. Each will have a Governor, and I welcome the appointments which have been made. I particularly welcome

27
the appointment of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald as Governor-General of the Union. I can think of no one better who could be appointed. I have known him for many years and seen him at work in Canada and elsewhere, though not so intimately, perhaps, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne. To begin with the Governor will have an Advisory Council, which he will select. It is the intention that the Constitution shall be broad-based and representative, and that the final determination of numbers and the details of representation should not be decided until there has been consultation with local opinion. I think that that to some extent nullifies what the noble Viscount said on the previous occasion, that there would Le no established of recognized minority representation.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure that I never said anything of the kind.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Let me quote the noble Viscount's own words:
"I think the noble Viscount knows enough about British ideals and methods of government to understand that it is not our policy to establish privileged minorities."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is another matter.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: This is taken from Hansard.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: But the word "privileged" makes all the difference.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am suggesting to the noble Viscount that the result of this White Paper is that you are going to make privileged minorities, because you are going to have representation of the minorities on the Council, and, if they are placed on the Council, in that way they will be privileged minorities.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt again, but do I understand the noble Viscount to argue that minorities should not be represented?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am arguing that minorities should be represented, and that they should be privileged. The noble Viscount said that they were not privileged. I am very sorry if we disagree about what the noble Viscount said and about the interpretation which I place upon his words.
28
There is this other point in connexion with the Advisory Councils. It has been pointed out that the responsibility is placed on the Governor's shoulders to select the members of the Executive and Legislative Councils on this basis of representation. I submit with all respect that it is not fair to the Governors to put that responsibility on their shoulders. Whatever they do, they are bound to excite hostility or enmity in certain sections of the community by not giving what are, perhaps, considered the proper proportions of representation. I suggest that the proper and, in fact, the only way in which this could be done, in which the various interests can really get a proper deal out of this, is that a properly constituted Commission should be sent out from this country to go into these questions of representation and other questions which the Government may wish them to examine. I do urge this—and I am not saying anything in contradiction of my noble Leader, because I have not questioned the actual giving of a new Constitution at all. I do urge that the Government will, having regard to the state in which things are to-day in Malaya, especially in Singapore, form a proper Commission and send it out to conduct an inquiry. This will in no way abrogate what has been done by Sir Harold MacMichael and the Malay Rulers and Councils. What the various interests in Malaya do ask and urge is that the matter of their representation and their interests should be efficiently and fully investigated before this Constitution is finally given.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, before commenting on the Bill and the Government proposals, I would like to endorse the thanks which have been expressed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for the way in which he has explained what the Government intend to do. At the same time I would congratulate the Government on the appointments they have made. Two of these gentlemen, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald and Sir Edward Gent, are personal friends whose ability and judgment are widely recognized, and such appointments augur well for the success and smooth running of the proposed Constitution.
With regard to the Bill, I desire to offer I a few remarks which I hope will be taken

29
into consideration, for, whilst wishing the new policy every success, I am sorry that the Government feel it necessary to press forward these far-reaching proposals with such great haste, when we well know that the peoples of Malaya are still sore and suffering greatly from the effects of the Japanese occupation. Judging from the communications which I have received since the White Paper was issued, the haste with which they are being pushed forward does not inspire confidence. In fact, the reverse is very much the case, and I say that advisedly because I have taken great trouble to verify some of the statements which have been made to me in this connexion. I want to see this scheme a success. I want to see it carried forward with good will, without ill feeling and without resentment. It can never be a success unless it is carded out in that way.
The hope has been expressed in many quarters, by those who know and love Malaya, that the Government will not legalize the term "Malayan Union." It is rather suggestive of a Poor Law institution or something of that sort. I should hope that in place of using such a term we might adhere to the century-old term "Malaya." That really is a century-old name. It is beloved by all who know the country, and I suggest that it is a far better name than "Malayan Union." I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will be able to see his way to do something about that. Those of whom I am speaking also hope that the present unimposing label of "Straits Settlements," for the adjacent Colony, will be erased from the map altogether. No legal descriptions for the areas created by the new policy could be better than those ready to hand—namely "Malaya," and "Singapore," and I urge that consideration should be given to these two suggestions.
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Malayan Union is to be inaugurated at a time when feeling between Chinese and Malays has never been more bitter. I think it right that I should point out that following the Japanese occupation, in Johore alone, three Malay District Officers, one Malay Assistant Commissioner of Police, and one Malay Inspector of Schools are reported to have been murdered by Chinese, most of them schoolboy Communists. A boycott is reported to have driven most of the small Chinese population out of Kelantan.
30
Chinese guerrilla bands are still looting and pillaging. This may be ascribed to the war, but it nevertheless illustrates the animosity prevailing, and every care must be taken to avoid inflaming passions further. The fact must be faced that no system of government can unite or fuse a population composed of different Asiatic races, with different outlooks, different and often conflicting interests, and very different and irreconcilable religions. It is impossible to fuse them; we must come to an agreement with them all in amity if we are to succeed in this great task.
The Chinese are fully aware of their capabilities and resent our taking on the role of super-men, privileged to rule over every class. They look for friendship on our part and not condescension. They have seen us as a conquered race, subject to the greatest degradations by the Japanese, and this fact will never be forgotten. It is a sad thing to think of, but it is a reality that must be considered, and that is why I interposed just now to say how delighted I was to hear that a decision, or rather an order, had been made that no Jap would ever again be allowed in Malaya—at any rate until better conditions and a better understanding with those inhuman wretches prevail. I hope that that order will stand good for all time.
The demand for independence and self-government is increasing throughout the world, and nothing can stop it. In a country like Malaya it is inevitable that the question should be asked why a small number of Europeans should form the Government or control it, when the vast majority of the population is Asiatic. The troubles in India, and the recent violent upheavals in Java are an illustration of this, and they must not be disregarded. With this in mind, and hoping for a peaceful and contented solution, I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to inform us, if he will be so good, who was it, in the first place, who asked for this "Malayan Union." Did the peoples of Malaya express any wish for it?
With regard to the statement in the White Paper that Sir Harold MacMichael has successfully concluded an agreement with the Malay Rules, "after consultations conducted with friendliness and good will," it would be far more reassuring if His Majesty's Government would state

31
definitely that the agreement had been concluded with every Ruler after he had consulted his Council. It must not be forgotten that it was by our British advice that the Rulers have always acted in Council and that actions taken otherwise were unconstitutional. With the merging of States, some of our treaties with the Malay Rulers definitely require the written consent of the Rulers in Council. To look at the situation from another angle, unless the proposed Union has been approved by the Rulers in Council, an unfair weight of responsibility is being thrown upon the Sultans. It lays them open to the criticism of their chiefs and their peoples and may leave a legacy of discontent at the illegality which may well cloud the inception of this new Constitution. Another sentence in the White Paper runs:
"Those acquiring Union citizenship otherwise than by birth will be required to affirm allegiance to the Malayan Union."
One can understand allegiance to the Sultans or to His Majesty the King, but how many people, even in this country, would feel bound by an Oath of Allegiance to the British Constitution? I think that that should be looked into.
My remarks, I would again assure the noble Viscount opposite, are made in no captious spirit. I welcome this scheme and I congratulate the Government most heartily on the appointments they have made for the Governor-General and the two Governors. I repeat that I hope the Constitution may be launched without feelings of bitterness or resentment. If this is done, I am sure it will redound not only to the credit of this Council but to the benefit to the people out there.
4.12 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, if I take part in the debate now, it is not because I think the measure is a very controversial one but because I was unfortunate, Owing to my absence from England, in being unable to take part in the previous debate to which the Leader of the House has referred. May I, to begin with, invite your Lordships' attention to one point in this Bill which will, I am sure, be of interest to students of history? The Act of 1866 which we are now asked to repeal had for its main purpose the cancellation of the previous arrangement by which the Straits Settlements were ruled from India. It is interesting to reflect what a very
32
different position Malaya now occupies in the world from those days when it was a somewhat ill-considered dependency of India. It was inevitable, of course, that although this measure is of a very restricted extent, and is in fact confined in its main purpose of allowing us to separate Prince of Wales Island, Penang and Malacca from the Straits Settlements of which they were made a part under the previous Acts, that discussion should range over the whole scheme of the White Paper. It is not only here, of course, that this matter has aroused attention but there has been a certain amount of criticism and discussion from outside, in which many persons who are closely acquainted with Malayan conditions and deeply sympathize with the Malayan people, have taken part. It is mainly in view of what has been said outside that I venture to add a few remarks on what has already been said to-day on the subject.
Whether this is a measure which has been unduly hastily conceived or not I have not sufficient acquaintance with Malaya to say. My acquaintance is that of study and of a brief visit; but I have myself in a somewhat long administrative life had reason to look on the appointment of Commissions with some apprehension. I am not greatly enamoured of the Commission procedure advocated by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I am not sure whether the complaint that this scheme has been unduly hastily conceived comes mainly from European interests in the country, or whether it is likely to be felt by the people at large. That is a point which it may be a little difficult for us to decide here; but it certainly seems to me that there are strong reasons for supporting the main purpose of the White Paper. I think that everyone is agreed that viewed purely as a measure of administrative reform it offers great advantages. You have an existing situation in which Malaya at large—and I am not referring at the moment to Singapore—is nominally ruled by nine Sultans and their Councils, but subject to what is called the advice but what does, in fact, amount to the orders, of Residents or Advisers. No one would contest that under this system the country has made an almost spectacular advance.
I am not referring merely to our own views in that regard; there is the evidence

33
of many competent foreign observers on the subject. Whether you look at the improvement in material conditions, the improvement in health conditions, the improvement in education or in general standards of living, I think you can say that Malaya has during the relatively brief period of our rule made an advance far greater than that of the majority of our dependencies. Whether that can be said to be due entirely to the present system, or largely to the fact that the revenues of the country, derived from the enterprise of private capital in the tin and rubber industries, have enabled expenditure to be undertaken on a scale unexampled in the other dependencies—whether that is not at least as large a contributor to this advance as the system itself, I find it difficult to determine. But the fact remains that progress has been unequal. Many of the States have lagged behind both in material developments and in the improvement of social conditions. Moreover, the requirements of the future are for social and economic advance of a kind that needs co-ordinated policy, strong technical and uniformly directed services. The present system does, of course, militate against this.
But the scheme on the White Paper does not end merely at administrative reform. It has a political aspect, the purpose of facilitating political development. Such development towards self-government has, as Lord Marchwood has said, become inevitable, and this demands the evolution, if not of a sense of nationalism, at all events of community of interest. As Lord Marchwood said, it may be very difficult to fuse together elements so diverse as we find in Malay. Whether we may be able to achieve that or not, it is certain that the maintenance of a number of self-centred units, each with its local loyalties, would clearly be an obstacle to that development.
Moreover, it is difficult to see in the maintenance of the present system any logical basis for the development of self-rule. One line of advance—and it is one that has seemed natural to a great many people—would be the gradual reduction of the elements of superintendence or control over Sultans and their Councils, leaving them ultimately in unrestricted control of their local areas. Now this might be self-government of a type; but it is not self-government of the type of which we have usually thought elsewhere. We have
34
always assumed that self-government means not merely the absence of external control, but the existence of some form of political machinery which would give as wide as possible a share of popular control over the legislative and executive actions of the Government. That might take various forms, not necessarily the form of Parliamentary Government as we understand it. The continuance of the present system, even although accompanied by a progressive reduction of control and the withdrawal of supervision, would not necessarily secure this end. The end might perhaps be secured by retaining just that element of official control which would be necessary to secure that the Sultans and the Councils did popularize the institutions of the country, and though it might be effective in that respect, yet so long as an element of external control is retained, even to that limited extent, that again would not be self-government. As I have said, there seems to be in the maintenance of the present system no logical basis for the development of self-governing institutions.
I think, however, I am right in saying that, generally speaking, the objections that have been taken to the scheme or the criticisms that have been expressed about it have not been against the principle of the White Paper, so much as against some of the methods that may be employed to obtain our object and some of the consequences that will be entailed. I think that this was also the conclusion of the noble Viscount, Lord Marchwood. Now, there are here two major considerations. The first—and we have heard of it again to-day—is the position of the Sultans of the States. We made agreements with them as independent sovereigns, but the necessity for securing the final and undisputed control of the Crown both in the legislative and judicial sense will involve the extension of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, and this, in a juridical sense, will undoubtedly deprive the Sultans of the position of independent sovereign.
However, there is this to be said on the other side. The fact that they had in their own agreement, in the past accepted the obligation to act on the advice of our Residents or our Advisors and that this has for many years established a well-understood usage by which control has remained in official hands, this has, in effect,

35
very largely invaded their de jure position. It is perhaps this fact, as well as more material considerations, that has led them to accept the position which it is now proposed to establish and which we have been told has been fully explained to them in the negotiations with Sir Harold MacMichael. Now I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Marchwood, in hoping—and I hope we may obtain an assurance from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison—that that acceptance has not been only the acceptance of the Sultans themselves, but the acceptance also of their Councils. Throughout systems of this kind it must always be understood that though in form they are not in fact autocratic or absolute, it is always essential, and well-established by tradition, that the Sultan should act with his Council.
But we may nevertheless hope that the change which is now proposed in their de jure position will not be allowed to result in wide invasion of the position which they otherwise occupy. They obviously have the full loyalty of their own subjects; they enjoy a position of dignity and respect; and apart from what we owe to them, their influence can be of great value to us in securing the social advance of the country and the betterment of its conditions. The powers acquired under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, as I need not remind noble Lords, many of whom no doubt know its terms more intimately than I do, are in every way complete. But, as experience has shown, there can be a very wide measure of difference in the extent to which those powers are utilized. If we take for instance the example of Zanzibar, it has shown that authority acquired from the Foreign Jurisdiction Act is not incompatible with the retention of a Ruler in a position which, while it enables us to achieve our legitimate purposes, does not seriously impair the prestige or the dignity that he commands by tradition from his own people. I hope that similar steps might be taken on that analogy to secure the position of the Malayan Sultans.
There is here one particular point. It is proposed that the Sultans and their Councils shall remain the authority for legislating on and deciding issues relating to Moslem law and religion. That is of course a function which they have already
36
exercised in the past under their own agreements, but the position will require very careful definition, because in the theocratic system of the Moslem's religious law was all-pervading and covered a very wide field, both of criminal and civil matters, including many aspects of land holding and land tenure. It would be very unfortunate if for lack of care in defining that position there should be any conflict arising which would make relations difficult as between Sultans and the official Administration.
But, as I have said, there is not only the consideration of administrative unity, there is a second major consideration arising from the White Paper scheme. I mean its effect not only on the position of the Sultans but on the position of the Malayan population generally, a point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has called prominent attention. It is proposed to give formal recognition, through the creation of the Malayan Union citizenship, to the rights of the immigrant communities, and the grant of citizenship must in due course result in the extension of political rights to them. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has given you some figures relating to the exact position in respect of the various component elements of Malaya, that is, the Malayan population, and the large immigrant communities. It is of course the fact that, taking Malaya as a whole, the Malays or Malaysians—and I include in that term also the very large number of Malays who are themselves immigrants from Sumatra and not original inhabitants of the country—now constitute only 37½ per cent. of the total population. For the present purposes, however, it is advisable to exclude Singapore, and if I give you the few figures that follow it will perhaps illustrate the position a little more fully than the total figures of population the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, gave you.
In the Federated Malay States, the Malays are now only 26 per cent. of the whole population; in Kedah and Perlis, they are 67 per cent., and in Kelantan and Trengganu they are 90 per cent. In Johore they come down to only 22 per cent. of the total population. Now whether we regard these as minorities, as Lord Elibank described them, or however we regard them, it is quite clear we have a position in this respect of some delicacy. There is no doubt that our

37
Policy in the past has been directed to maintain the position of the Malays as against the immigrant population. Some of the agreements with the State actually stipulate that the officers of the local (that is to say the State) Government were to be only Malays, and there were declarations made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in 1925 and the permanent Under-Secretary of State in 1932, which emphasized the desirability (to use the words of the latter) "of establishing safeguards against the political submergence of the Malays which would result from the development of popular government on Western lines." Throughout I think it has been generally our policy to guard against a submergence of the Malays in a political sense and, indeed, in an administrative sense by the immigrant communities.
But if we are in earnest to promote self-government institutions in the peninsula as a whole, how far is it possible to neglect the claims of these immigrant communities? It is true that they owe their modern growth to our own action or the action of European private enterprise in developing the tin and rubber industries. But the Chinese in particular have an old-standing connexion with Malaya. They are said to have been established in Malacca for 300 years. They certainly exploited the tin resources of the country long before the European occupation of it. The treatment of the Chinese by some of the Malayan Sultanates in the old days was indeed the very cause of our intervention in the peninsula and our efforts to obtain jurisdiction over it. The Chinese are to-day mainly responsible for much of the internal trade and industry in the peninsula itself. It is a little difficult to say how far they can be regarded as a permanent immigrant population. In 1931, 31 per cent. of the total Chinese population was actually born in Malaya. I quote this figure as an illustration though it may not in itself be a real proof of permanence of the Chinese immigration. But it shows the extent of the Chinese immigrant interest. That of the Indian immigrants, which constitute some 14 per cent. of the population, is much more transient. They are very largely labourers on the plantations.
But this kind of problem is not a new one for us; we have had to face it elsewhere in our dependencies. The case of the Indian Tamils in Ceylon is a case in
38
point. We have had to face it in Fiji, where the Indiana immigrant population is now exceeding in number the indigenous population. We have had to face the same problem in East Africa. I am not referring merely to the fact that we have an immigrant European population whose interests may have to be considered; there is the problem of the Indian immigrant population also.
Now I think it is clear that, in view of all the circumstances, we must recognize the political rights of these communities. But I hope that the concrete measures which will be taken in this regard will take due account of our obligation to the Malays. I notice for instance, that it is proposed to give the Malayan Union citizenship to all persons born in the territory of the Union. It seems worth while considering if his should not be confined to persons born in the Union of parents one or both of whom themselves were born in it. That would give you a far larger measure of connexion with the Union itself. In other ways also I hope that due steps will be taken to safeguard, as far as possible, both the feelings and the position of Malays, as, for instance, in admission to the public services or in regard to facilities for acquisition of land.
As both the noble Lords have emphasized, there is, as a matter of fact, something like standing animosity between Malays and Chinese. It has, perhaps, never been stronger than at the present moment. The Chinese have constituted the real "resistance" movement against the Japanese in Malaya, and it is certain that they will stand out strongly for the recognition of their political claims in Malaya. Nevertheless we have to remember this: that the interest of a large number of these immigrant communities is limited to the industrial or commercial opportunities they represent. As all experience shows, it is only rarely that an emigrant from China or India can regard any other country as his adopted homeland or as the real centre of his loyalty and attachment. I think on that ground, and apart from the very obvious ground of defence on which I have said nothing, for it is one of the outstanding questions that still have to be solved, there is every reason why we should proceed with caution and with studied moderation in such part of our political developments as may affect the

39
position of the Malayans. Our rule has, as I have said before, brought great benefits to Malaya, both in material and in social progress. As I have said before, I believe Malaya has made a more rapid advance in the short period of our rule than most of our other dependencies. But we now have to consider the further promotion of social and economic advance, not for its own sake, but as the foundation for the progressive establishment of the institutions of self-government. We must, therefore, endeavour to secure that political advance is achieved on terms which will neither injure the self-respect of the original inhabitants of the country nor impair the value of their co-operation in achieving its success.
4.41 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if I rise for one moment to welcome this Bill it is because, as the Leader of the Opposition remarked, although it is a very small Bill it is by implication an extremely important one. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who used the word "Dominion" in connexion with Malaya. I think we all hope that this Bill will be the first stone in the foundation of a new Malayan Dominion. Therefore, I think, it is impossible to exaggerate its importance. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and the noble Viscount, Lord Marchwood, were doubtful whether this was the proper time to undertake these measures. To me it seems that no time could be more suitable than the present, when all Malayan institutions are in the melting pot. If we re-established what I think all sides of the House admit to have been an unsatisfactory state of affairs, it would surely be very much more difficult later on to undertake these steps of fundamental reorganization. Lord Marchwood inquired who asked for these measures to be undertaken. I would say the answer is that the circumstances of the present day demanded that they should be undertaken.
Before the arrival of the European in Malaya, or indeed in all the countries of South-Eastern Asia, the peoples there formed almost completely homogeneous societies, greater or less, ruled by Rulers who varied from petty tyrants to benevolent despots. There existed no rule of law other than the will of the Ruler. Economic relations generally were con-
40
trolled by custom. I do not wish to paint a picture of a lost Utopia; the conditions were such as you would expect to find under petty tyrannies or even under benevolent despotisms. The arrival of the European and the introduction of Western thought and methods produced a revolution in all those countries from Burma to the Dutch Indies and Indo-China. There is a curious resemblance, I suggest, between the events in all those countries. In every country the native customs were upset and replaced by an increase, or an apparent increase, in the wealth of the country owing to Western methods, but that involved the importation of foreign communities. In Malaya the foreign community is no longer a minority community but a majority community. For the rule of custom there has been substituted a state of social anarchy. That, I submit, is the fundamental problem of all these countries in South-Eastern Asia.
The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, stated what we all know to be the fact—namely, that the social condition of the peoples in Malaya has been vastly improved, and remarkable social and medical services have been put at their disposal. But those services have really had as their aim the improvement of conditions for the commercial exploitation of those countries. Education, for example, was directed to provide the employees required for administration and for business enterprise. Instead of giving to those people something with which to replace their native culture and their native traditions, we gave them only so much education as was required to make clerks of them. The maintenance of small units in Malaya was clearly, in a modern world, an anachronism. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, has pointed out that the process of self-government in a democratic sense was clearly impossible under the Sultans. I would suggest to your Lordships a point which we, as a great Colonial people, must consider—namely, that where we support native rule we thereby prevent the ordinary action of powers within those States which would have varied, modified and produced progress in the Government's composition and general make-up. That being so, it seems to me that we have a definite duty to the people in such States, since they are unable to make their feelings known as they would if they were truly independent, to see that

41
their progress shall not thereby be impeded but rather aided under our guidance. The great problem with all these South-Eastern Asiatic countries seems to me to be how they can again co-ordinate their societies into a single effective, if not racial at least cultural, homogeneous whole. I believe that this Bill is the first foundation stone in setting up an administration and an organization in South-East Asia which will show the way and which will be a guide to other territories which have to face this extremely difficult and complicated problem.
I have seen a certain number of extracts from the Malayan Press. They seem to me to be, on the whole, welcoming the present plan, but with reservations, and nearly all those reservations turn on the point of Malayan anxiety lest they may be submerged. In our earlier debate I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, what steps, if any, were being taken or were in contemplation for the protection, not so much of the Malayan but of the peasant cultivator. The land reservation policy does not, I suggest, go far enough. What is required in Malaya, as in other Eastern countries, is protection for the cultivator, security in the tenure of his land and a reduction of rural indebtedness.
I think that the exclusion of Singapore, although on economic grounds it may seem a difficult and perhaps clumsy operation, is in fact an operation which at this time can hardly be avoided, and which is indeed desirable. As the noble Lord, Lord Halley, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Marchwood, also, pointed out, the population of Singapore is predominantly Chinese, and were those deducted from the total number of Chinese in Malaya, Chinese preponderance would be very much less threatening to the Malayans. On that ground I suggest the separation of Singapore under a separate administration is a necessary operation at the present stage of development. I would, incidentally, like to ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government—he probably cannot do it at this stage—whether he can give any indication of what the exact relationship between the two units which it is proposed to set up, and, later on, of the other unit, Borneo and Sarawak, is likely to be. I hope their separation will not be too absolute or too complete and that it
42
may be made possible in the future to co-ordinate those units more closely.
We have heard a good deal about Malayan citizenship. I thought a very good point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Halley, when he suggested that mere birth in Malaya should not be an entitlement to citizenship unless at least one parent of the child had already got that citizenship. That seemed to me a very sensible and reasonable point, and I hope that it is one that the Government will consider. I hope, too, that this citizenship will really mean the birth of a new Malayan entity, of co-operation between the races of Malaya, and a far happier future for them, which may be a guide to other countries in that very difficult neighbourhood.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think that we have had a discussion on this Bill which is characteristic and in the high tradition of this House. It has been contributed to by a considerable number of speakers who themselves are well acquainted with the problems concerned, and who are able to give us the assistance of their special knowledge. That is the special characteristic of the discussions of this House, and give; them their very high value. I shall try to reply quite briefly to the questions which have been put to me, taking them in their reverse order, Dealing with a question put just now by my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I may say that it is proposed that the Governor-General shall have regular meetings with the other two Governors and such of their advisers as may be necessary with a view to promoting harmony and co-operation in schemes of administration in the two areas. I have no doubt that under the skilful guidance of the man whom we are going to send there that will mean quite rapidly an increasing measure of consolidation and common guidance.
I think that what the noble Lord said in reply to Lord Marchwood about the time of introduction of this Bill was peculiarly appropriate. I think that the time is exceedingly well chosen, or at any rate forced upon us. I should like to remind your Lordships, and to remind myself, of something which I omitted to say at the beginning—namely, that this scheme is not the sole invention of the present Government. The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranborne) is well aware

43
that this has been the subject of consideration for a long time, so that we do not take any special credit in that respect. It is peculiarly fitting, however, that these changes should be initiated now, because the disorders which the war has produced in that area provide a unique opportunity for making a better start before some of the habits become consolidated which we would rather were not renewed. In that sense, therefore, the present time is very appropriate.
We shall consider, of course, the suggestions which have been made with regard to the conditions of citizenship, and particularly the suggestion made by Lord Hailey near the end of his remarks. We are fully alive to the safeguards needed for the Malays, and very sympathetic in that respect. In spite of that, we have, of course, to recognize the rights and privileges of bona-fide residents, and of workers who come to live there and make their homes in this area, and we have to treat them fairly too. The facts with regard to the population which have been given to me in a table provided officially since the debate started are not quite what one might have understood from what the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, said, because there is a great preponderance of Chinese in Singapore.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I said so.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: With regard to the rest of Malaya, I am told that in 1941 the population consisted of 2,200,000 Malays, 1,780,000 Chinese and 664,000 Indians. I do not know the numbers of the others. In Singapore the figures show a quite different position; there were 599,000 Chinese in Singapore, and only 77,000 Malays and 59,000 Indians. I think that that difference in the population is in itself a very important reason for treating Singapore separately, as otherwise the Malays in the rest of the Union would be more likely to be overshadowed by the active business people in Singapore.
I can assure Lord Hailey that we have given full consideration to safeguarding the rights of the Sultans, and I think that the scheme is fully adequate in that respect. Their privileges and duties with regard to religious places and observances are fully safeguarded. In reply to a question put to me by more than one noble Lord, I am authorized to say that
44
Sir Harold MacMichael consulted the Sultans with their advisers in every case, and, where it was a statutory duty that they should be consulted with their advisers in a formal Council, that also was done. It was not a case of merely consulting with the Sultans individually, as might be thought. I say that partly in reply to Lord Marchwood, who asked that question. As for his preference for names, I shall report that to my friends, and we shall await the result of their considerations. As far as I am concerned, I do not object to the word "Union." I should have thought that one who belonged to the Party which the noble Lord has represented for so long would not object to it either, because the members of that Party for a long time prided themselves on being Unionists. I thought that the name "Malayan Union" was a happy one, but I shall report to my friend the noble Lord's animadversions, and he will no doubt meditate upon them. I cannot say more than that.
I did not feel able to agree with the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that we should send out a Commission of Inquiry now. I was not sure as to the terms of reference that were in his mind, but, in view of the elaborate, painstaking and long-continued investigation and negotiations which have taken place, I do not think that it would be wise or necessary to send out another Commission of Inquiry.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: No Commission of Inquiry has been sent out. The noble Viscount speaks of "another Commission," but we have never had one. The question which really requires investigation is that of these so-called minorities—the different races—the relationship between them and their representation on the Council. Conditions in Malaya have altered very considerably since the former proposal; were made, and no Commission has ever been sent there.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is quite true, I believe, that there has never been an inquiry by a body called a Commission, but there have been most prolonged and detailed inquiries.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In the Colonial Office.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It will be a very important part of the duties of those con-

45
cerned with the initiation of these schemes to create the safeguards which are legitimate for minorities. We shall certainly not lose sight of that. Personally, however, I do not think that a further inquiry by a body styled a Commission is called for at all, in view of the elaborate and painstaking and long-continued inquiries which have already taken place.
I now come to the very important point raised by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, which I confess I fully anticipated. I understand that, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, these proceedings, these changes, alterations and adjustments are brought about by orders, and that this Bill is strictly in accordance with those that have gone before it in that respect. That is to say, the form of this Bill is in conformity with all other previous Bills effecting similar improvements. But I recognize that times have changed and that this is a very important, and, in fact, in one sense, a revolutionary proposal. I am greatly impressed by what the noble Viscount says, and if he will allow me to leave it where he suggested that I might leave in I will bring his very forceful observations with regard to the procedure affecting orders to the notice of my colleagues, and will communicate the result of our conference to him before the Committee stage is reached. Under the circumstance I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
5.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, In moving the Second Reading of this little Bill I would like to point out that the object of it is to authorize an additional Exchequer grant in aid of local authorities for three financial years. The first year is the current year, 1945–46, and in that year provision is being made for £10,000,000 to be advanced. In the next year, 1946–47, it will be £11,000,000, and in the third year, 1947–48, it will rise to £12,000,000, making £33,000,000 in all in aid of the work of our local authorities.
46
The principles and plan of this Bill were agreed upon by the National Government during the Coalition period, and it is, therefore, another case of continuity of policy. When the Bill was in another place it was given a Second Reading without a Division, and it was highly commended by the former Minister of Health, Mr. Willink, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party. So I have no doubt that your Lordships will give the measure your blessing when I have done my best to explain its provisions.
It is really an interim measure intended to carry forward the financial arrangements, for a period of not more than three years, by which time it is hoped it may be possible to make a grand survey of the whole of the relationships between the Treasury and the local governing authorities. At present, those relationships are a little strained and unusual, and, in some cases, rather unhappy. But we cannot very well make a large-scale revision at this stage, because so many changes are taking place and are likely to take place. For example, local affairs are very unsettled owing to movements of the population. They are not yet stabilized. Industries, too, are moving from one area to another and a lot of mutation is taking place in that regard. Then, again, in many instances, under another Act of Parliament boundaries are being surveyed and altered. In the case of a number of boroughs they are being extended further into the county. All such matters are in a state of fluidity.
Moreover, we are looking forward to some new large-scale legislation along the lines of what are popularly known as the Beveridge reforms. They will affect local government in many ways, particularly financial ways, as well as the finances of the country as a whole. The new Education Act of 1944 has thrown additional burdens upon the local authorities, and there may be further changes that will bring further burdens upon these authorities, possibly in the form of orders or requests or legislation requiring them to provide for more and better lighting of streets and roads. More expense may be involved, also, in dealing with accidents on the roads, for the death roll is so terrible that further stops must be taken to minimize them. Then widening and other improvements to roads will have to be thought of, and I hope that there will

47
be provision for more car parks. All that falls within the ambit of the local authorities and will add to their financial burdens. They also have town and country planning to provide for, and matters of that kind.
But, on the other hand, some changes will give them substantial easement of a financial character. The new Insurance Bill which is now moving in another place will, I believe, relieve them entirely of Poor Law charges, and it is estimated that the value of that relief is in the neighbourhood of £30,000,000 a year—which is a very appreciable amount. Next week, we may ask your Lordships to consider a new Trunk Roads Bill, authorizing the taking over of a lot of important roads by the Minister of Transport, thus relieving local authorities of responsibility and expense in the maintenance of those roads. Further, as your Lordships know, those authorities have spent a good deal of money on hospitals, maternity and child welfare. They may be eased, in this respect, by the new Health Services Bill. So you see that on both hands great changes are taking place, and we cannot make permanent financial arrangements between the Treasury and the local authorities at the present moment.
This Bill is brought in to give assistance now especially where it is most needed. It also virtually arranges for the apportionment of sums of money approximating to what local authorities might have received under the quinquennial revisions of the regular block grant which is authorized under the Act of 1929. Such quinquennial revision would have started from April, 1942, but it was found in 1941 that the work could not be undertaken then, and, by general agreement, it was postponed by an Act carried in 1941 which authorized the suspension of the quinquennial revision. Time present total amount of the ordinary block grant for all local authorities involved amounts to about £46,000,000 a year. If it had been revised—as provided for before the war—as from April, 1942, to April, 1947, it might have been increased by about £7,000,000 a year. That is the estimate of what might have happened had there been a revision.
The local authorities postponed many improvements which they had in hand, but, now the war is over both in Europe
48
and the Far East, they want to proceed to carry out those improvements, and they need the money to enable them to do so. I might say here that throughout the war the local authorities have been most economical—as, indeed, they always are—in the administration of their own affairs, and they have taken great care of such moneys as they were able to conserve through, for example, not having to light the streets during the black-out. They have been very helpful over extra wartime work which has been put upon them from Westminster. Therefore, I am sure your Lordships will be disposed to help them now when their turn has come to ask for help in carrying out their own work.
I would point out that this Bill does not make any provision in the way of general aid for the loss of rateable value through war damage and movements of population. There have, of course, been great movements from various areas owing to evacuation and the people have not always returned. There have also been movements of industries, and the rateable value, the yield of the rates in such areas, has of course diminished. No grant is made under this Bill in respect of loss of rateable value through war damage, although special grants have been made and the Minister of Health is prepared to give further consideration to appeals from local authorities in that matter. But each case has to be taken separately on its own merits because there is no general rule you can apply to the whole lot. I believe that £15,000,000 have been granted already in aid of war damage in circumstances such as I have described.
The new grants to be provided under this Bill will be distributed with a bias in favour of the poorer authorities who need most help. I am sure that your Lordships would desire that that should be the case. The arrangements under which the differentiations are made is provided through a complicated but fair formula under which these variations take place. In the case of boroughs, the Merthyr Tydvil rate was as high as 29s. in the pound. They will get a grant equal to a 2s. 9d. rate out of this new money. In the case of West Ham, where the rate is 21s. 6d. in the pound, they will get out of this new money something equal to 1s 9d. in the pound, whereas in the case

49
of Blackpool which is a flourishing seaside resort and where the rates are only 11s. in the pound, they will only get 1½d. Bournemouth, more prosperous still, has rates which are only 9s. in the pound, and they will only get ½d. That, in comparison with Merthyr Tydvil's 2s. 9d. will enable you to see how fairly this money is being apportioned. There will be similar differences in the counties. In Caernarvon the local rate is 19s. 1d. in the pound and the assistance will be 2s. 1d., whereas in Surrey, where the rate is only 11S. 2d. they are to have 3d. in the pound.
For those reasons and the fairness of the arrangement, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' notice and in doing so I should like to point out that a great part of the wonderful political strength of this country, of our country's solidarity and efficiency, is very largely due to the efficiency of the local authorities in administering their affairs with great devotion. They attract men who are prepared to give good service to them loyally and in an honorary capacity. I think we should be proud of our local authorities and the general efficiency with which they carry out their work and should be prepared to help them whenever we have an opportunity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL SERVICE (RELEASE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS) BILL.
5.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, this Bill is described by its title in a manner which indicates clearly the purpose for which I submit it to your Lordship's House. It will, I think, be commonly agreed that in many matters we have arranged our affairs more satisfactorily during the late war than in the earlier war. In few cases is the contrast more striking than in our treatment of conscientious objectors. Your Lordships will remember how, in the course of the earlier war, much appeared in the Press and much was spoken
50
on the public platform in connexion with controversies as to the position of conscientious objectors and even those who were least sympathetic to the views which they held could not help feeling that in some instances there was a certain harshness in their treatment, while the conscientious objectors themselves suffered great bitterness of spirit by their treatment. Quite different has the position been in the case of the late war. The rights and at the same time the obligations of conscientious objectors were set out in the legislation which itself constituted the arrangements for National Service. It was the obligation of conscientious objectors to register and it was for a tribunal to decide whether or not they were in truth conscientious objectors. The total of conscientious objectors in the late war was rather under 45,000 in all. I think it is interesting to note perhaps that in the earlier stages of the war the proportion was 2 per cent. of the call-up, which was reduced as the war proceeded to 0.1 per cent. of the call-up.
The conscientious objectors fall within three main classes. There are those who, having registered, were directed to the Non-combatant Corps. They numbered some 15,000 men and some 30 women. Those who were registered without conditions numbered about 3,500 men and 100 women. Those who were conditionally registered numbered 25,000 men and 700 women. It is only with the last class—the conditionally registered, the 25,000 men and the 700 women—that your Lordships are concerned in this Bill to-day. Those who joined the Non-combatant Corps obtained their release on the same footing as other members of the Armed Forces by way of the operation of the age and service scheme. Those who were registered unconditionally took their place at the time of such registration with their fellow citizens without obligations for National Service. Those who were conditionally registered were directed to some civilian work deemed to be of national importance, some of them into employments under the Essential Work Order, others directed in particular occupations and the balance selected occupations with the approval of the tribunal.
The National Service Act, 1939, in dealing with the conditionally registered conscientious objectors, provided that they were to continue to be subject to the

51
condition until the end of the present emergency, the emergency to which that Act was directed, an emergency which is coterminous with the emergency for the purposes of the Armed Forces of the Crown and the date of promulgation of which is at present, of course, quite indefinite for the future. The consequence is that unless some steps are taken, these conditionally registered conscientious objectors would be under the compulsion of remaining in their present occupations for an indefinite period, that is, until the period of emergency under the National Service Act is declared to be brought to an end. It is with a view to that situation that this Bill has been prepared. The Bill is designed to put the conditionally registered conscientious objectors in the same position, as near as may be, as the man or woman serving in the Army, that is, the age and service principle will apply. The conscientious objectors will form, so to speak, a corps among themselves, sub-divided into age and service groups on the same principle as the Armed Forces, and each age and service group of these conditionally registered conscientious objectors will be released when the whole of the group in the Armed Forces to which they belong has itself been released.
For instance, if one takes Group 24, when the whole of all ranks of Group 24 have been released from the Army—the Army has been taken for simplicity's sake—then conditionally registered conscientious objectors of the same age and service group will be released. As regards women I ought to mention that, the same principle applies and, in respect of married women, they are free to be released whenever they choose to ask that they may be. From what I have said previously, your Lordships will appreciate these conscientious objectors may be in occupations governed by the Essential Work Order or, in work to which they have been directed by the Ministry of Labour. It is, of course, not intended that the release should be a mere formality. It is intended that it should be a reality, and consequently those who are serving in work under the Essential Work Order, or in work to which they have been directed by the Ministry of Labour, will be allowed to leave that work to seek other work, and will indeed in all respects on release be in the same position as a
52
member of the Armed Forces who has been released in the normal way.
I ought perhaps to tell your Lordships how the period of time will be calculated for the purposes of calculating an age and service group. It will be calculated normally from the date of registration by the Tribunal or, if there has been an appeal, by the Appelate Tribunal, but in the case of those—and there was a considerable number—who served in the Armed Forces prior to their registration, the period during which they served in the Armed Forces will count towards their service in calculating their age and service group. Furthermore, there may be a number, such as the members of the Friends' Ambulance Unit, who did wholly admirable and indeed noble work during; the war, and, so far as they are concerned, the Ministry of Labour will take steps to see that they are released, having regard to the nature and quality of the work which they have done.
There is little more that I need say to your Lordships except perhaps this, that what is known as the Class B scheme, for the purposes of release from the Armed Forces, will be applied for getting out-of-turn releases in the case of those conditionally registered conscientious objectors; in other words, the release of such conscientious objectors is being assimilated to the release of those in the Armed Forces. I have wished to acquaint your Lordships in general terms with the purpose and the contents of the Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Nathan.)
5.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, there are one or two points in respect of which I should like elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. He said, if I understood him rightly, taking Group 24 as an example, that these conscientious objectors would be released as the last people of their own class; when Group 24 of the Army was released, these conscientious objectors would be released at the end of Group 24. Well, that is 211 right as regards the Army. I should like it to be made quite clear—as I am sure the noble Lord will make it quite clear—that there will be no people of that particular class left in the Navy or Air Force when these conscientious objectors are released. It is only fair that the Air

53
Force and Navy should have an assurance—as I am quite sure my noble friend opposite will agree—that there are none of that class left when these conscientious objectors are being released.
There is another point. As I understood it, there are different classes of conscientious objectors, some more conscientious or less conscientious—I do not quite know how you express it—than others; whether these are the least conscientious or the most conscientious I do not know, but, at any rate, they have been put in Government employment, they have been—what is the present term?
A NOBLE LORD: "Directed."
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: —directed to particular employment as I understand it. Now this Bill says that if a man who is a conscientious objector is directed to Government employment, the moment this Bill is passed and his category is reached that man is released from Government employment, in spite of the fact that people of his own age and his own category, who would have been in the Army except perhaps for some physical disability, are still kept in Government employment, still employed and not able to move to other employment. It seems to me grossly unfair, as I hope noble Lords behind me will agree, that a man who may have lost a limb or an eye in the last war and was not able to go into the Army or the Air Force or the Navy, however much he may have wished to do so, and who was directed by the Government to certain employment—it may be directed to employment in Sheffield while his wife and family were living in Devonshire—should have to go on being employed by the Government in Sheffield with his family some hundreds of miles away, whereas the conscientious objector is allowed to go and do what he likes and join his own family. I do not think that is fair. I hope the members of the Government Bench will think this over before the Committee stage is reached, as I presume there will be a Committee stage, on this Bill. I am saying nothing against the degree of conscientiousness of the conscientious objectors, but it is not fair to the man I have mentioned., who wants to serve his country, to be kept in a place where he does not want to be while the conscientious objector is allowed to go free.
54
There is another point in respect of which I should like elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and that is this: As I understand it, with regard to this Bill, if I remember the noble Lord's words, he said that it places the conscientious objector as near as maybe in the position of the man in the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force who is to be demobilized. Well, with regard to an employer of labour, when a man is conscripted and taken away to the Armed Forces, on his return that employer of labour is obliged, and quite rightly so, to re-employ the man who has been his servant, he is obliged to re-employ him in the work in which he was engaged in 1939. If, as I understand, by "as near as maybe" the noble Lord means that under this Bill a conscientious objector may be demobilized or de—whatever it is—what is the right word?
LORD NATHAN: Released.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Released. If the conscientious objector is released by the Government, can he thereupon go to his former employer and say, "You must kick out this ex-Service man whom you are now employing and must reemploy me on the conditions on which you employed me before"? I am sure I have the support of people behind me when I say that if a conscientious objector has been put in some factory for reasons of his own and for his conscience, and the employer of labour has then filled his place with a discharged and maybe wounded man from the Services, that employer should not have to discharge that wounded man and put the conscientious objector back into his job. Those are the points upon which I should very much like elucidation from the noble Lord before we read this Bill a second time.
5.31 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would like to support the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, on one point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in summing up the Bill, said the idea was to make the release of conscientious objectors similar to that of the Armed Forces in regard to the groups. I am sure that is very laudable, and we would all agree with it, but I want to stress the point so well made by Lord Rosebery. Do let us have it similar, and not give the conscientious

55
objector a preference over other people who have been directed to work on the same terms as himself—I forget the expression now—under the Essential Work Order. I do not think he should have any preference over those people. I quite agree that we have gone one step; we have equal conditions for conscientious objectors with the Armed Forces in regard to release; but do not let them have extra privileges for release from the work to which they were directed. That is the only point I want to make.
5.33 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, let me relieve the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, at once in regard to the third of the three questions that he put to me, by saying that the provisions of the Reinstatement Act do not apply to conscientious objectors, so his anxieties on that score I can thus readily dissipate. So far as the Government employees are concerned, it is of course true that those who have been directed into Government employment, or who have accepted release from the Armed Forces and been posted to (I think it is) W reserve for that purpose, may come within the provisions of Defence Regulation No. 58AA, under which they can be held by the Government Department. It only applies to temporary civil servants. It is open to the temporary civil servant to apply to the official chief of his Department, and if he is able to make out a good case why he should be allowed to return to civil life he will be permitted to do so. The demobilization—if that is the term I may use in this connexion—of the civil servant will not, as matters stand at present, depend on age and service groups, but will depend, in the first place, upon individual release to deal with individual cases, and then, no doubt, upon the withdrawal of Defence Regulation No. 58AA.
As regards the assimilation of release to the Army principle, it has, of course, to be remembered that the conscientious objectors are wholly or for the most part actually in the Army in the sense that they were called up to the Army, and, having been called up to the Army, they have appealed or made an application.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not want to interrupt in any way, but I know of quite a number of conscientious objectors who failed in their Army medical
56
examination and therefore could not have been in the Army.
LORD NATHAN: If a conscientious objector were of a degree of health which incapacitated him from service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, he would be in exactly the same position as any member of the public who was not a conscientious objector, and the fact of his being a conscientious objector would not indeed arise. It only arises when he is called up, and the release of this conditionally registered conscientious objector is assimilated to the Army releases, in the first place, because he was or is in the Army, although sent to other work as a result of his appeal to the Tribunal, and also because the Army system of release is far the simplest and relates to the far largest number of people. Throughout the three Services, the system of release so far as the actual groups are concerned does not run absolutely evenly for a variety of reasons, partly owing to tradesmen's questions and matters of that kind, and the Army system has been adopted for the reason I have indicated; that they were called up to the Army and also because it is the simplest scheme. I can say to the noble Earl that they are released in respect of the same group but after the release of all ranks in that group.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: In the Army?
LORD NATHAN: In the Army. I have not answered the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in what I said just now. The noble Lord, as I understood him, put the matter thus: that those who were conscientious objectors directed to particular jobs should not now, on their release as conscientious objectors, be released from the obligations of the Essential Work Order or the direction. But I would say to the noble Lord that as release under this Bill, and release indeed at all during the emergency, depends upon a man being released under the Essential Work Order or the direction—that is, the compulsory service from which he is being released—if he were to be retained in the essential work or in the directed work, then the release would be wholly nugatory. It would be a frustration of the whole purpose that his release should be effected.
Let me tell the noble Lord what, as I understand the position, actually happens. On the conscientious objector in

57
question being sent for release under his age and service group he will report himself to the local Ministry of Labour and National Service officer and say: "I have received a notification from the Ministry of Labour that I am to be released under this particular Act. I am now released; here is the notice." The officer of the Ministry of Labour and National Service would say: "Be it so. I now release you from your obligation in this essential work or in this directed work." Upon that, the conscientious objector is in the same position as a released soldier; he has a period of, I think, eight weeks within which to find work which may be suitable and convenient. It may even be his former work to which he returns. If he succeeds in finding a position within that time, then, just as in the case of a soldier, the Ministry of Labour and National Service takes no further interest in him; but if he fails within eight weeks to obtain employment by his own activities, then he becomes, like anyone else who has been released, subject to such obligations as may remain for the direction of labour. I will repeat what I said initially. The object of this Bill is in all respects to assimilate the release of the conditionally registered conscientious objector to that of the soldier released from the Army.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEREQUISITIONED AIRFIELDS.
5.43 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government to clarify the position relating to the payment of compensation in the case of agricultural land which was requisitioned and used for aerodromes and then subsequently derequisitioned; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name, and I will do it in a very few minutes. Supposing an airfield has been derequisitioned, what is the next stage in the proceedings? The landowner has got back his land, but he finds himself the possessor of large buildings and many acres of concrete runways. Who is going to undertake the removal of those works? Under Sections 28 and 29 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, the Minister has power to remove
58
war works from land and to restore the land to its original condition, such power to be exercised within two years from the end of the war period. I should like to know whether five years should be substituted for two years, in view of certain recent emergency legislation. However that may be, the removal of these works from airfields is a very important question. No private individual will ever be able to find the labour or the machinery to undertake these works of removal, quite apart from any question of expense.
The matter does not end there, for it may take several years to carry out the removal of these works from airfields. In the meantime, as I understand the position, the compensation rent (which, incidentally, never exceeds £28 per annum per acre in the case of agricultural land) will no longer be payable, for the simple reason that the period of requisition has come to an end. That is a very important factor, which I ask the Government to take into consideration. I read in the newspapers in December, 1945, a paragraph stating that owners of derequisitioned hotels and boarding houses may now claim compensation to cover up to three months' rent for repairs before business can be restarted. It is submitted that a similar principle should be applied to agricultural land which has been requisitioned and used for airfields, although of course the period of three months is far too short in the case of airfields. Even when the buildings and runways are removed there will still be a great deal more work to do before the land is rehabilitated and brought back into complete cultivation. In some cases the top soil has been removed over large areas, and this will have to be restored; work on drainage and making ditches will have to be done; boundaries must be restored, and walls and fences remade. During this further period of restoration some parts of the land may perhaps be put into cultivation, but there will not be complete cultivation of all the land for some considerable time. In other words, landowners will still be suffering loss directly flowing from the taking of the land by the Government Department. I should like to know who is going to undertake these further works of restoration—the Government or the private individual?
Then there is the question of restoring the fertility of the soil. For some years

59
the land has been partly covered with buildings and with concrete and tarmac, and the uncovered portions of the land have been loft uncultivated. I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who is now the Leader of the House and to whose speeches I always listen with profound interest, saying on a previous occasion that he believed there still was a great deal of fertility left in the soil in this country. I am very glad that that is so, but at the same time I doubt very much whether a mixture of concrete and tarmac can compete successfully with nitrogen, phosphate and potash as an element for invigorating the soil. In other words, landowners in this country will have to spend considerable sums of money, over and above what they would have spent in the ordinary course of events in purchasing fertilizers. I hope that is a fact which the Government will take into consideration. Then there is the question of putting up new buildings in the place of old buildings such as barns which have been entirely removed in order to clear the site. There is no doubt that under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, the expression "the doing of work on land" includes knocking down buildings. It is, therefore, quite clear that landowners whose buildings have been entirely removed will be entitled to compensation.
That brings me to the very troublesome question of the adequacy of the compensation. As we all know, under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the measure of compensation for damage done during the period of requisition is limited to the value of the land. However, in Section 52 (1) of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, the Minister has a discretion, in the public interest, to make a payment of some compensation over and above that which may be recovered under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. In the case of a building requiring repair it will seldom happen that the cost of repairing the building exceeds the original value of the building, but where a new building has to be put up to replace a building which has been entirely removed it will inevitably happen that the cost of the new building will exceed the original value of the building which was destroyed. In the case of land, as distinct from buildings, difficulties will always arise, especially in the case of
60
agricultural land which has been requisitioned and used for the purposes of an airfield. Suppose 200 acres of land are worth £20 an acre, then the total value is £4,000. At the end of the period of requisition it may cost the landowner £20,000 to restore that land to cultivation, but under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, he is only entitled to £4,000. For the balance of £16,000 he is entirely in the hands of the Minister under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. It is not unnatural, therefore, that landowners throughout the country are very anxious as to the attitude which the Government are going to adopt in dealing with the subject of compensation.
There is one other question I should like to ask the Government, but I do not expect an answer to-day. Against which Government Department or Departments should a claimant make his claim for compensation? It is a very simple question to ask but a rather difficult one to answer, because there may be numerous Government Departments concerned, such as the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and possibly others. I will only make one further observation in conclusion. There is a tribunal called the Claims Tribunal which exists for the purpose of assessing compensation. It would be quite improper on my part to ask what the tribunal should do in this or that particular case, and likewise it would be improper for me to ask that the Government should vary any existing statutory provision in order to interfere with the jurisdiction of the tribunal. All I am asking to-day is for the Government to state their general intentions with regard to the rehabilitation of agricultural land which has been requisitioned and used for the purpose of an airfield, as having a special bearing upon the subject of compensation. I beg to move for Papers.
5.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a very specific question. It concerns an airfield which is on agricultural land, which was requisitioned, and which has since been derequisitioned. He asks me to clarify the position with regard to compensation and I am very pleased to do so. May I say first, in reply to his question, that a claim should be made against the Government Department which holds the requisition on the land. This is a

61
difficult subject, and if I do not make it quite simple it will be my fault; and therefore I would ask the noble Lord, if I have not made it plain, to interrupt me. The answer depends on Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. Compensation is payable under four different heads. First of all, during the occupation the person concerned receives an annual sum equal to the rent which may reasonably, be expected. Secondly, at the termination of the requisition he is entitled to a sum equal to the cost of making good any damage to the land. Thirdly, he has received a sum such as would be paid in respect of an ordinary agricultural tenancy by an incoming tenant in respect of unexhausted manurial value, fertility and the like. Fourthly, under subsection (1) (d) he is entitled to "a sum equal to the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred … for the purpose of compliance with any directions given. …" The Government are giving, with the approval of the Treasury, rather a wide and benevolent construction to (d), in respect to agricultural land, and they are in fact including under it as an expense what is commonly called a rehabilitation expense; they are including something—sometimes up to as much as two years compensation rent—in respect of the fact that there will be a substantial period of time daring which the land which is the site of the airfield will not be usable.
There are, however, two provisos. The first is that the appreciation in value since 1939 is to be disregarded, and the second is that the payment is not to exceed the value of the land at the date of the requisition. When a man's land, which has been badly interfered with by the construction of the airfield, is handed back to him, he receives back his land, and he also gets the cost of making good the damage, which sum may be equal to the original value of the land. That is the effect of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. In the case of a grass airfield—and there are many such—it is very unlikely that the limit will be reached, because the compensation will be largely in respect of the restoration of the buildings. I agree with the noble Lord that the land includes the buildings. It will probably be largely a question of restoring fences and the like, because you find in nearly all these cases that the land comprising the airfield was in the
62
hands of several owners and a large number of tenants.
If when the airfield is no longer required certain buildings remain on the land, the Minister can, under Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, either remain in possession and maintain them or, having given up possession, cuter and remove them. In the latter case depreciation of the land caused by the buildings upon it is dealt with under Section 46 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. That is to say, the continued presence of the buildings is disregarded for the purposes of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and is dealt with separately under the provisions of Section 46 of the Act of 1945. That is the answer, and I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is tolerably clear. It depends mainly on the construction of Section 2 of the Act of 1939 and the sections of the 1945 Act which I have mentioned.
I want to pass now to something else, because His Majesty's Government have been giving a great deal of consideration to this matter, and I want to say a word or two about airfields with concrete run ways. Since the debate on November 22 last, further consideration has been given to this question, and I want to suggest to your Lordships what can be done in these cases, and to tell you the conclusions to which we have come. I accept the doctrine that just as the State should act as a good employer and as a model landlord, so the State should show due consideration to people whose land or property it has requisitioned. I accept that doctrine to the But there is no reason however why the State—because, after all, the State's money is the taxpayers' money—should behave like a half-witted landlord. Let us consider what would be the position if any one of us was confronted with this situation. We have an airfield with runways upon it, with a perimeter track, with hard standings and bomb bays. Let us assume that we have an airfield of 500 acres, to take an average size. Let us assume a price for agricultural land of £50 an acre, and that is fairly generous. That land would then be worth £25,000. But it has runways and other things on it, and therefore instead of £25,000 it is worth, let us say £12,000. To bring it up from £12,000 to £25,000, what would have to be done?

63
I took the trouble last Sunday—it was a nasty, foggy day when I got there, but I could see enough—to see two of these airfields, one at Chipping Ongar and another at Rivenhall. I hope that some of your Lordships will take the opportunity of going to see them. After a large practice at the Bar in engineering matters, I have some knowledge of engineering problems, but I took experts with me, because I wanted to form an impression of how much it would cost to restore those airfields to their previous condition. A very rough estimate is that there is something of the order of 100,000 cubic yards of concrete, and certainly not less of hard core. If you take a figure of 10s. per cubic yard to remove this stuff, you get a cost of £100,000. You then have to consider where you are going to put it. There would be unsightly dumps, and even then you would be left with the hard standings and the bomb bays. I do not believe that you would get all that material cleared away for less than between £100,000 and. £200,000. Who in his right senses, using his own private money, would contemplate spending £100,000 to bring into being an asset worth £25,000? It is absolutely inconceivable, and therefore if you face up to this—as we have to do—I think you will not fail to realize that we have not the money and certainly not the labour at the present time to embark on it. It is quite impossible, at the present time, to contemplate the removal of the concrete or the hard core from these places.
Let me add one further fact. If we did so, as the noble Lord himself has pointed out, we should not have dealt with the whole problem. The character of the surface in many instances has been altered by the removal of the top soil. The perimeter track at Chipping Ongar which I have mentioned was built up by using the top soil. Then, of course, there is the runway, in the construction of which the higher ground is levelled, thereby taking away the top soil, and used for filling in the hollows. So you have two layers of top soil in the hollows and none on the higher ground. So, as I say, if you move all the concrete and the hard core, you will by no means have solved the problem.
There is another consideration which is to be borne in mind. If we are driven, as I believe we are, to hand back the air-
64
fields in their existing conditions to the previous owners, in almost every case we should have to deal with what are known as "multiple owners." In one case there are, I am informed, no less than 46 different tenants. I think I am right in saying that in the case of Chipping Ongar and Rivenhall there are about ten. If the airfields were handed back in their present condition it would be most inequitable. It would be like dividing a leg of lamb between a number of people, bone and all. One man would get a piece of bone and another would get a piece of meat. One unfortunate tenant at Chipping Ongar would possibly get back an area covered with hard standings and bomb bays, and another would have an area fit for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it seems to me quite impossible to contemplate removing the concrete, and it would be grossly unfair to hand back an airfield in its existing state. I feel convinced that if any of your Lordships will go down and look at these sites for yourselves, you will not feel disposed to dispute that what I have said is a matter of plain common sense.
The policy which we believe to be the right one is to treat each of these airfields as a complete unit. So treated they have substantial advantages. On many of the sites water is now laid on, there are sewage systems and very good roads. We have to consider each of these places separately in order to see what is the best course to follow. In some cases it may be possible to use an airfield in connexion with a town planning scheme. In other cases it may be possible to set up holiday camps. I know of one or two cases in which manufacturers are contemplating the acquisition of an airfield. The policy which His Majesty's Government propose therefore is that we should apply under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Act of 1945, to acquire these airfields. That, as your Lordships appreciate, brings in the War Works Commission. We cannot acquire the property if the owner objects unless we apply to the War Works Commission for approval of the scheme that we have for developing it. That is, we intend to acquire these airfields under Section 6 (1) (a) of the 1945 Act. In cases where there is no objection, there will be no difficulty, I imagine, but if there is objection, the War Works Commission being seized of the matter,

65
will, if they consider it right, be able to refuse the application. That will be final. If, however, on the other hand,—and this I feel sure is what will happen in most cases—it is decided that what we propose is the right course, then we shall proceed with the acquisition of the land and develop it as a complete unit.
In some cases, it seems to me that the runways may be rather useful as roads. I know of one or two instances where the runways, if they were extended for comparatively short distances at either end, would form very useful links between villages which hitherto have had very poor road connexions. In some cases we may do that, but of course it may not be possible to do so in many cases. In some instances, the Ministry of Agriculture might undertake some large-scale farming operation—for example, connected with artificial insemination or pig farming or something of that kind on a large scale. There are possibilities too for stock breeding, as some of these build-clings might be very useful for housing stock or for storage. The hutments, I am afraid, are not of very good quality. They would require a good deal of repair and attention, and their roofs would have to be constantly tarred. Some of the hangars, on the other hand, seem very good from the point of view of storage, and they would provide vast accommodation.
Those are some of the things which we propose to do. I would answer the noble Lord's question, therefore, by saying that we do not contemplate attempting to remove the hard core and it is also very unlikely that we shall avail ourselves of the provisions of Section 29 of the 1945 Act, which give us power to do so, or of Section 52 which empowers payments to be made to the owners for such purpose. But, of course, it is possible that one or other of these powers may be used in respect of certain small detached areas which were requisitioned for purposes ancillary to airfields in respect of which no difficulty of reinstatement or of providing access can arise. I summarize the matter by saying, it is not our intention to derequisition "runwayed" airfields, except possibly in those very few cases where there is single, or substantially single, ownership. Where that is so, there is no reason why we should not derequisition them, but, generally, we
66
wish to acquire them—A the War Works Commission give the necessary authority—for agricultural or other purposes. Agricultural land would be developed by the Ministry of Agriculture, who, would, of course, be able to lease it or sell it, to appropriate persons. In the case of grass airfields, there will be general derequisitioning, and compensation on the lines I have indicated will be paid under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939.
I may tell my noble friend that there has been no extension, so far as the Service Departments are concerned, of the period of two years specified in Section 29 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. I think he has in mind the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act which extends the period for holding land in requisition by civil departments for a further period of five years. Our policy, therefore, in regard to surplus airfields, that is, those not required for defence purposes, is to acquire them under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Act of 1945. If the War Works Commission allow the purchase it is effected by the combined effect of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 and the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. I hope I have made that clear to the noble Lord and that I have both answered his question and informed your Lordships of the policy His Majesty's Government has thought fit to adopt.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for his courteous and clear reply and for the great trouble he has personally taken over this matter. I am only wondering what will happen to the runway airfields that the War Works Commission decide should not be bought. It seems to me they will be rather a problem in the years to come and possibly an eyesore to the countryside. However, "Sufficient unto the day—." I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with drawn.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a: and to be printed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.