Sitting of 31 January 1946

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  UNITED NATIONS BILL. [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable effect to be given to certain provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. I move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BANK OF ENGLAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE LORD STANMORE in the Chair.
Clause 1:
Transfer of Bank stock to Treasury
(4) After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October, the sum of eight hundred and seventy-three thousand, one hundred and eighty pounds, or such less or greater sum as may from time to time be agreed upon between the Treasury and the Bank.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "less" and insert
"sum as may from time to time be agreed upon between the Treasury and the Bank, provided that if any greater sum is to be paid notification of such intention shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament not less than twenty-eight days before the date when the next payment becomes due from the Bank to the Treasury.
102
In reckoning any period for the purpose of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in Clause 1 standing in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of this Amendment would be to ensure Parliamentary notice and, if thought necessary, Parliamentary discussion for any proposal to pay more than the sum specified in the Bill—namely, £873,180 Or less—half-yearly in lieu of dividend, and at the same time not to deny that flexibility to the Government which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he wished to retain as regards the freedom of the Government, should they so wish, legislating on a long-term basis, to increase the amount paid yearly or half-yearly by the Treasury.
I realize that this Amendment raises the question of Privilege, and I do not propose to amend it, but I hope for some acceptance from the Government, and some indication from the Government that they are willing to accept it. The reason I move the Amendment is to prevent, without Parliamentary approval, the Treasury recovering for general revenue purposes sums from the Bank beyond those sums that the business of the Bank can properly yield. The present dividend has been the same for approximately twenty-three years, and it has been stated that the Bank has no intention of increasing the rate of that dividend. The noble Lord, Lord Catto, said in his evidence:
"I do not think that the increase in the reserves would have affected the dividend in the future. Our object would have been service, as I have indicated a few minutes ago, and we would have reduced our charges for any service or we might have done a great many other things so as not to increase our earnings; in any unreasonable manner, that is."
And the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place has also declared that he has no intention of raising the dividend. In Column 956 of the House of Commons Hansard for December 17, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported as saying:
"I hasten to add that I have no present intention of suggesting a variation."
He continued:
"I have no reason to think that the Bank of England has any reason to suggest a variation, but if it seemed to both parties reason-

103
able to alter it, it would be a pity if they were prevented from doing so by rigidity in the Statute."
The Amendment which I move does not tie the Government down, and does not give that rigidity that the Chancellor wished to avoid. At the same time it does give the safeguard of Parliamentary consideration for any such proposal to increase the amount recovered by the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in all good faith said that he had no intention of raising the amount paid, but nevertheless he has said on several occasions that he cannot bind his successors, and all Chancellors of the Exchequer in future may not be so broadminded and wisely guided as the present Chancellor, because the possibility does exist that in future some Chancellor, ignoring the services the Bank is required to render to the nation as the first consideration of the Bank's business, may fall into the temptation of depleting the resources o; the Bank for general taxation purposes. Indeed, in another place yesterday, Major Lloyd-George dealt with this very point, and he said in very clear words:
"Whatever party the Chancellor belonged to, the Chancellor did not alter a great deal in his habits. One of the most deplorable things about Chancellors is that they are always short of money."
He also said: "I was saying Chancellors are always broke and any source of revenue which they can collect they will take." Well, that possibility does exist in the future. We have seen examples of it in the past, such as the Road Fund—the large taxation upon motor-cars— which was originally designed and intended for improvement of the roads, and which is now diverted to general revenue purposes. Then the Post Office is a constant source of wonder and satisfaction to the Chancellor every year when he comes to prepare his Budget. I sincerely hope that this safeguard against the Bank's resources being raided for general revenue purposes will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("less") to the end of line 10 and insert the said new words. — (Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICKLAWRENCE): I quite appreciate the motive
104
of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has moved this Amendment. He is exceedingly anxious that there should be no loophole through which some nefarious practice shall be carried out by the Chancellor, not necessarily the present Chancellor, but some future Chancellor, and it is perfectly right that the Opposition should scrutinize every line and every comma in a Bill of this character to make sure it does not lay itself open to such abuse; but I venture to submit to your Lordships that in bringing forward this proposal the noble Lord is really finding something that does not exist. The remedy would be a very grave one to adopt in a case of this kind.
Let me first of all deal with what is involved. The proposal—and it is obviously one that will commend itself to the Chancellor and future Chancellors and to the Bank—is that the amount of money which will be passed in this way will exactly correspond to the dividend. The noble Lord was perfectly right in saying the dividend had been the same for the last twenty or more years, and it is the intention of the persons concerned that it shall remain at the same figure. Therefore I can give him the assurance that it is not the intention of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in any normal circumstances to put up the figure, but, as he himself has agreed, it is desirable, or may be desirable, that there should be a certain amount of flexibility, not for the purpose of making a great raid on the Bank's funds but for some slight adjustment that might be a little less in one period and a little more in another. That might become desirable, and it would seem foolish if in this Bill we shut out that possibility.
The noble Lord says, "I agree with that, but if so, let it be formally available to Parliament and let us have a full debate on it in both Houses before the matter becomes a fait accompli." I would venture to suggest that that would be a most undesirable solution, because for this House and for the other place to debate this matter, which is a matter of the reserves of the Bank, would not be a very desirable thing, and I should have thought that it really was quite unnecessary. The reasons why I would venture to suggest that it really is quite unnecessary are ones which have, I think, perhaps escaped the attention of the noble Lord. In the first

105
place I would like him to read the last words of the subsection:
"or such less or greater sum as may from time to time be agreed upon between the Treasury and the Bank."
Therefore it is not a matter of the Treasury deciding to take more from the Bank: this can only happen if there is an agreement between the Treasury and the Bank, and I am quite sure it could not be so if that agreement was subject to directions which the Treasury might impose on the Bank under a later clause. Therefore the first prerequisite is that the Bank should be a party to and should agree to this proposal that a larger dividend be paid. I think that in itself is a very substantial safeguard.
I would further remind the noble Lord, however, that though the procedure which would actually arise under the Bill does not provide for previous discussions in the Houses of Parliament, the fact that this sum was being taken and was greater than the normal amount would appear at the time in the Treasury accounts. It would no doubt be seized upon at once by the Press and called attention to. Therefore it would be not only certain to come under the notice of the Public Accounts Committee but it would be discussed, if it was thought desirable. Therefore I think there are quite adequate safeguards: first of all in the concurrence of the Bank in the proposal, and secondly in the fact that even if it is not published in advance it will be published at the time, and will therefore be subject to review by the Public Accounts Committee and can, if necessary, be called in question in the Houses of Parliament. In those circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Treasury directions to the Bank and the relations of the Bank with other banks.
(3) The Bank may, if they think it necessary in the public interest, request information from and make recommendations to bankers, and may, if so authorized by the Treasury, issue directions to any banker for the purpose of securing that effect is given to any such request or recommendation:
Provided that:

(a) no such request or recommendations shall be made with respect to the affairs of any particular customer of a banker; and

(b) before authorizing the issue of any such directions the Treasury shall give the banker concerned, or such person as appears to them to represent him, an opportunity of making representations with respect thereto.

4.15 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE moved, in subsection (3), to delete the first "may" in order to reinsert the word after "interest." The noble Lord said: This Amendment which I have caused to be put down is moved as a result of the debate which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill. I was called upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who perfectly properly, of course, interrupted my speech, to give a very precise explanation of Clause 4 and, in particular, subsection (3) of Clause 4. Subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Catto, referred to the matter and there appeared to be some slight difference between the view I expressed on the spur of the moment in answer to the noble Lord and the view of Lord Catto. There may have been some slight divergence but I think we really were not addressing ourselves to precisely the same aspect of the matter, and I take the view that what the noble Lord, Lord Catto, said on that occasion is a perfectly correct interpretation.
Later in the debate Viscount Swinton asked, as I understand it, for a legal ruling from my noble friend the Lord Chancellor, who, being more adroit than I am in giving answers to legal conundrums, described, I think, the precise meaning of the words in the clause probably with greater accuracy than I did. I have very little doubt in my own mind—and this is the view of the Government—that the interpretation that the Lord Chancellor placed on the words already existing in the subsection is correct. It has been pointed out to me, however, that the meaning which the Lord Chancellor attached to the words could be made free of any conceivable dubiety if there was a small alteration in the order of the early words. The words of the subsection as it stands are:
"The Bank may, if they think it necessary in the public interest, request information from and make recommendations to bankers, and may if so authorized by the Treasury, issue directions" …

107
and so on. It might conceivably be argued that the phrase, "if they think it necessary in the public interest "only applied to the matter of requesting information, and that that proviso did not apply to the second part of the subsection, the matter of the Bank issuing directions. I am therefore proposing an Amendment to relieve the matter of any conceivable doubt and to alter the place in which the word "may" occurs, to take it out from being the third word of the subsection and to put it in after the word "interest" in the second line of the subsection.
In its new form the subsection will read as follows:
"The Bank, if they think it necessary in the public interest, may request information from and make recommendations to bankers, and may, if so authorized by the Treasury, issue directions to any banker for the purpose of securing that effect is given to any such request or recommendation:"
I do not personally think it changes the meaning of the subsection, but it may help to remove doubt and it may help with the interpretation which Lord Catto gave of this subsection. It is one which I think the noble, Lord sitting opposite (Viscount Swinton) desired should be made abundantly clear. Therefore, on that principle, I have pleasure in moving the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, leave out (" may ")—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation which he has given to the House, and for moving this Amendment. I am very glad that I raised this point, which I think is a very important point of principle, on the Second Reading. The Lord Chancellor was good enough then, on the spur of the moment, to give me an answer after we had had a good deal of debate about it, and I am very glad that he finds, after further consideration, that the view he expressed on the spur of the moment was, as it so often is in legal matters—I will not say in all other matters—entirely correct. It is enormously important that the principle about which we are all agreed should not only be maintained but that there should be no doubt about it—namely, that in all cases where directions are to be given by the Bank of England to the joint stock
108
banks, or to a banker as defined under the Acts, the initiative shall rest, as Lord Catto expressed his opinion that it was the intention that it should rest, with the Bank of England. That is the common intention, and I am very glad that the Government have proposed this Amendment which makes the matter clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line so, after ("interest"), insert ("may")—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEhad given Notice that he would move, in subsection (3), to add to proviso (b) the words "and no restriction shall be imposed on the banker by the Treasury or Bank on publication by the banker of any direction or directions, and matters thereon, unless the First Lord of the Treasury shall certify that such publication would be against public interest."
The noble Lord said: Since I put down this Amendment the Government have put down the Amendment which appears on your Lordships' Order Paper, and which I think entirely covers the point I was endeavouring to, raise and to get agreed to in my Amendment. The point was simply to ensure that any banker receiving a direction under Clause 4, subsection (3), should be free to give publicity to that direction unless it was certified by the Government of the day that an opposite course should be followed because otherwise the public interest would suffer. I would like to refer to the Commons Hansard of 19th December, when this point was raised in another place and when Captain Crookshank said:
"The Chancellor spoke of questions in the House and said that of course nothing could prevent the recipient of a direction from making it public. Then let us he quite clear and say so. The direction might say 'This is a secret', and therefore the recipient would be stopped from giving it any publicity."
Subsequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not consider the Amendment necessary, but that he would be willing to consult with Captain Crookshank and other members of the

109
Opposition on the subject. Presumably that consultation has taken place and the result is this Government Amendment which is on the Order Paper. So far as I am concerned it covers my point entirely and I will not move my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMONhad given Notice that he would move, in subsection (3), after proviso (b), to insert:
"and
(c) Subject as hereinafter provided every authorization by the Treasury together with the direction to which it relates (not being an authorization or direction relative only to the securing of information) shall be published forthwith in the London Gazette, and if not so published within two days after it has been issued, shall be void without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that it would be contrary to the national interest to disclose the terms of any such authority and certifies under his hand to this effect for the information of the banker concerned, then such authorization and relative direction shall not be so published."
The noble Viscount said: In view of the Amendment which has been put down on behalf of the Government, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
4.25 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) If, at any time before any recommendations or directions are made or given in writing to a banker under the last foregoing subsection, the Treasury certify that it is necessary in the public interest that the recommendations or directions should be kept secret, and the certificate is transmitted to the banker together with the recommendations or directions, the recommendations or directions shall be deemed, for the purpose of Section two of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to be a document entrusted in confidence to the banker by a person holding office under His Majesty; and the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts, 1911 to 1939, stall apply accordingly.
(5) Save as provided in the last foregoing subsection, nothing in the Official Secrets Acts, 1911 to 1939, shall apply to any request, recommendations or directions made or given to a banker under subsection (3) of this section."
The noble Lord said: I am obliged to the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their attitude in this matter. Personally, I should have thought the Bill, as it stood, covered the point, but I agree that the whole Bill is one for putting into definite words what has been the practice
110
for some time past, and as the noble Lord and the noble Viscount were so anxious that the practice should be made abundantly clear, I thought the point they wished to make should be made in some way or another. For reasons which I need not go into now, as they are both willing not to proceed with their Amendments, I should not lava agreed with either of their proposals. I think the proposal in the Amendment which I now move is quite unexceptionable, and I am glad the noble Lord and the noble Viscount take the same view. Therefore, without more explanation, I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, at end insert the said new subsections.—[Lord Pethick-Lawrence.]
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for proposing this Amendment, and if I say two or three words about it I hope he will not think I want to go over unnecessary ground. I do not quite agree that the Bill as it now stands covers this point. It does not cover the point. It may not be a very important point, but certainly the Bill, as it stands, does not cover it. There were two objects which it was considered desirable to secure, and I do not think there is any real difference between us as to either of them. One was that if the case were to arise—and I hope and believe it will very seldom arise—that under subsection (3) the Treasury came in to give directions, were such directions to be regarded as confidential matters or were they to be, as things ought to be whenever possible, open to publicity? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in another place, said—and I guile agree with him—that there was no reason here to seek unnecessary secrecy. I think we all accept the proposition that wherever possible publicity is better than secrecy. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a second point; he said, in effect, that a situation could be conceived in which a direction was initiated by the Bank of England, and countersigned, as it were, by the Treasury, where, on grounds of public interest, that direction should be kept secret. I do not deny it. I can imagine a case, perhaps on the eve of some really terrible international crisis, where it might be desirable to give an indication to the joint stock banks

111
which, in the public interest, at any rate for the time being, ought to be kept a secret, and certainly none of us would want to put anything into the legislation which prevented that.
This Amendment puts in a different form, and I think in a better form, what I had in mind in the Amendment I put down. It covers both points. The only difference is that whereas I put the principle first and the exception second, the Government draftsman puts the exception first and the rule second. He begins by saying that if there is such an exceptional case and the Treasury certify that it is necessary in the public interest that the recommendations or directions under this clause shall be kept secret, well then, they shall be kept secret. He goes on to say what would necessarily, I think, occur as right to a lawyer without it being said—namely, that it shall be treated as an offence under the Official Secrets Act if a confidential direction is disclosed. I think that is quite right. He then goes on—and this is a case where the tail is more important than the dog—to say in subsection (5):
"Save as provided in the last foregoing subsection, nothing in the Official Secrets Acts, 1911 to 1939, shall apply to any request, recommendations or directions made or given to a banker under subsection (3) of this section."
I personally prefer the Government's proposal to the one I made, for the reason that the proposal in the Amendment I put down would have really automatically published every such direction. There may be cases in which that would not be generally desired and therefore I think it much better to do as the Government do in this Amendment, which is to say that it is perfectly open to publish the information and no one is to be blamed, reproached or prosecuted if he does publish it, except in a case where the public interest is the overriding consideration and it must be treated as a secret because otherwise the public interest would be injured. I have no desire whatever to supplement the explanation of my noble friend, but perhaps I may be allowed to say so much because this really secures what some of us had in mind. I am perfectly willing to agree that the draftsman's form of words is always better than the form suggested by somebody else.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his Amendment, and to say once again that I am entirely satisfied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
4.30 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 read a second time. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will not think that I am letting the side down if I tell your Lordships quite frankly that I do not like and cannot commend the form in which this Bill is drafted. Indeed, although I am accustomed to the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act and the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Acts, I cannot think of any precedent for a Bill drafted on these lines, unless it be the somewhat similar Bill which was drafted after the last war. I sincerely hope that I shall never again have to introduce a Bill drafted on these lines, and I hope this Bill will be like the mule, which has neither pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity. But, having said that quite frankly, and having stood as a penitent about this Bill, I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading because, in the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves, I believe that we have no option in the matter.
When I introduced on October 30 last the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, I thought it right to tell your Lordships that we did contemplate that this present Bill would be introduced. I said:
"Then, by a different Bill, we propose to introduce as soon as possible an Emergency Powers (Transitional Provisions) Bill, designed to keep alive for a strictly limited period after February next such residue of the powers of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act as will be necessary in the transitional period."
The situation is this. Long before the war ended, in the days of the Coalition Government, we contemplated and looked forward with hope and eagerness to the

113
days when we could put an end to the Emergency Powers Act altogether. During the war it had been the custom to renew that Act for a period of twelve months and when what was called the Caretaker Government was formed, that Government decided, for reasons which may have been good, to renew it for only six months, with the result that it will come to an end on February 24. We shall none of us regret the decease of that measure.
In the meantime, we have been working on the question of the provisions which we should require during the transitional period. The Bill to which I have just referred was, of course, a Bill framed to enable the Government of the day to pick out from the mass of Defence Regulations such regulations as they thought were necessary for certain specific objects. They were to last—we had some controversy about it—for five years. There is, at any rate, this to be said about the present that what we pick out from the Defence Regulations is set down specifically and is to last only for two years; that is to say, these powers will come to an end in December, 1947. I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary to renew any of them after that date. If they have to be renewed we shall have to bring in legislation in the ordinary form to renew them.
Having said that, let me try to help your Lordships as far as I can by showing you what this Bill does. I have the Bill in front of me, and I will read part of the long title:
"An Act to provide for the continuation of certain Defence Regulations during a limited period notwithstanding the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 to 1945 …"
If I may pause there for a moment, your Lordships will find that Clause 1 of this Bill is the operative clause in that respect. It deals with a variety of subjects selected from the Defence Regulations, all having this relation and this relation only to one another, that they all were in the Defence Regulations. It deals with topics as widely diverse as false fire alarms, venereal disease, the opening of cinemas, and the payment of wages to roadmen by cheque, as well as a host of other things; and all those things are to continue until the end of 1947. It reminds one a little of that old and strange catalogue—
"Shoes and ships and sealing wax
And cabbages and kings."
114
There they all are and that is what we propose to do.
There is only one that I need specifically mention, and that is to be found on page 20 of the Bill. I think I should call your Lordships' attention to it. It is the Defence (Services for Industry) Regulations, 1945, which were put in on the Report stage in another place, and enable the Board of Trade to arrange with industry for scientific research, statistical research and so on to be provided at the cost of industry, with provision for levies in certain cases. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House not long ago and in the course of his speech the noble Lord pointed to such provisions and asked that legislation for the purpose should be introduced. I mention that because it is one of the topics to which your Lordships' attention might well be directed when we come to consider this Bill in Committee. I would like to make this offer to your Lordships, because I realize the difficulties which may present themselves on the Committee stage. If I can be of any assistance in giving factual information about any of these Defence Regulations, I shall be very pleased to do so, either by interview or by letter. It would be quite impossible for me to embark on a description of all these regulations, and I am sure that your Lordships would not desire it, because if I were to do so, this speech would last very much longer than I contemplate.
So much for the Defence Regulations. The next part of the long title provides for:
"the extension and amendment of certain enactments the duration or operation of which depends on the duration of the said Acts or of the war;…"
Those are set out in Clauses 2 to 11. Clause 3, for instance, provides for subsidies to agriculture; it concerns such things as the subsidy payment if the farmer sells his wheat at less than 11S. a quarter, and the payment for ploughing up land and so on. In the course of the two years up to the end of 1947, we shall obviously have to consider whether provision shall be made in the permanent law of the land for those matters.
The next part of the Bill provides for the permanent enactment of provisions contained in certain Defence Regulations,

115
which your Lordships will find in Clause 15. Clause 15 refers to the Second Schedule, and the Second Schedule shows the enactments we want to make permanent. As an example, I would ask your Lordships to look at the foot of page 21, which reads:
"If any superintendent registrar dies, resigns or otherwise ceases to hold his office, and there is no interim superintendent registrar, the clerk of the responsible council as defined by subsection (5) of Section twenty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929, shall, if required by the Registrar General so to do, appoint an interim superintendent registrar."
Everybody I think would agree that we should keep that power permanently. That is one illustration. Another example, which appears on page 22, concerns merchant seamen and their contributions to benefit funds.
Next I would refer to the power for establishing the ownership by the Crown of requisitioned goods, that is of goods requisitioned under emergency powers. Your Lordships will find this provision in Clause 16. Doubts have arisen where, for instance, the Crown has taken over, say, an hotel and its furniture, and has paid the appropriate compensation for the hotel and the furniture, whether the Crown can sell and whether it has a good title to the furniture. It is obviously desirable that that point should be cleared up, and power has therefore been taken to do so. Then I come to the clause for empowering local authorities to remove war works and restore land. That is Clause 12. What we have mainly in mind are air-raid shelters in streets. There may be other things, but that is the main matter.
Then we come to the repeal of certain emergency enactments. That is dealt with in Clause 17 and there are three of these enactments, the Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act, 1939, which has been replaced by the War Damage Act, the Exchequer and Audit Departments (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, which in fact was never used, and Sections 1 to 4 of the Allied Powers (War Service) Act, 1942. That last was the Act which gave us the power to call up non-British subjects for military service. We now propose putting an end to those powers permanently. The last part of the long title of the Bill is "and for purposes connected with the matters
116
aforesaid." Your Lordships will find these provisions in Clauses 13 and 14 and 18 to 24.
So your Lordships will see it is a mixed grill, with something in it I hope to suit all tastes. Perhaps your Lordships think it is nice to get back to four-course meals, yet I hardly think you would want all four courses served on the same plate at the same time. This is the price we pay for getting rid of the Emergency Powers Act on February 24, as I am sure we all want to do. I hope that under the circumstances your Lordships will agree that this exceptional measure should be allowed to go through and be given a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor).
4.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, as he has said, has had an uncomfortable task, and when he has an uncomfortable task like this he does it with such a grace and fine choice of phrase as almost to convert anybody without further reflection. He is setting up—and this is not the first time—an entirely new model as to the way in which Government Bills, or at any rate Bills of the present Government, should be commended to this House. He begins by saying: "Look at it; did you ever see such a misbegotten, misshapen infant?" I have of course to take my share of responsibility, he says, in effect, but I promise never to do it again. One has heard of cases where people have damned with faint praise, but so far as the form of the Bill is concerned the Lord Chancellor has damned it without any praise at all, and I must say I think, in that respect, he is right.
He calls it a four-course meal; why it is eighty meals all at once, and it is nearly impossible to discuss the Bill on Second Reading, for the reason he pointed out, because it is not really addressed to any special department or topic of legislation. It is a collection of all sorts of odds and ends which, rightly or wrongly, the Government think that Parliament should authorize for a slightly longer period. It deals with everything. The epitaph on Oliver Goldsmith declares in a well-known phrase that "he touched nothing that he did not adorn." I cannot regard this particular measure

117
as adorning anything at all but it certainly touches an infinite number of things. Anybody who spends sixpence at His Majesty's Stationery Office because he wants to understand what the Bill is about will certainly waste his money. So far as the text of the Bill is concerned it is next door to unintelligible. So far as there is any principle in it, the principle is that a number of regulations which are of a temporary character should be continued a little longer. I wish to declare that I agree that there are such cases. I think there must be at the end of a war.
I do not think that your Lordships have had your attentions called to what is, I suggest, the most significant of all the phrases in the Bill. After all, what are these regulations which we are going to prolong? They are regulations, of course, which were made for the purposes of the war, and I invite you to look at the Schedule which I think mentions altogether eighty-one different items. Look at page 10. You will see that, as regards a large number of these Defence Regulations, made, of course, under most exceptional powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, made really by Government Departments, and, of course, all made for the prosecution of the war, you have this charming and simple substitution. I am reading from page 10, line 9:
"For the words 'the efficient prosecution of the war' there shall be substituted the words 'the protection of the public'."
It is very difficult indeed to say that these regulations can have any future effect for the purpose of carrying on the war, because the war is over. This is indeed a Socialistic document and no one will complain if I say that this does embody the principle that little regulations are well justified at least in proper cases, so long as they are for the protection of the public. And who is to be the judge of that? Why, nobody at all, except of course the Minister concerned unless you would go so far as to say—which I do not suggest for a moment—that he was not acting in good faith. You cannot go to a Court and argue that this is for the protection of the public. The answer is "These people think it is and that is good enough for you."
But when you come to the contents of the Bill I must say that I think it can be described as a mixed grill. Look at the things to be prolonged, not until the
118
end of this year, but until December 31, 1947. Look at page 11: Regulation 32AB—" Power to require nurses, etc., to continue in employment in mental institutions." What does that mean? It means that a number of women, young, middle-aged or old, would, apart from this regulation be entitled to say "I do not want to go on with this job but to take up an employment which suits me better." By the regulation they are told: "You cannot do that. You may be under the illusion that the war is over and that you have a Government in power which is going to see that individual rights are restored, but if you are a nurse in a mental institution, you must stay there." When the poor woman asks, "Why must I stay there?" the answer is "This is an Act of Parliament which keeps you there until December 30, 1947." You cannot have new nurses; you will have to be content with the ones you have got. I do not understand how the powers require nurses in mental institutions to stay there. I do not think this means anything but that they cannot go away.
Take another example, which is, in its way, rather remarkable. On page 10 there is Regulation 16—"Control of Highways over or near defence works and protected places." That regulation was made in the course of the war and I fancy it was quite properly made because for the defence of the realm it might be important to stop up by order certain roads or paths which led to some protected place or to some arsenal. But this is going to be continued for another two years whereas the natural way in which to stop up a highway is to make application at the Quarter Sessions. It is quite true here that no fresh orders can be made, but the point is that you can stick up a notice "By Order of the War Office, in view of the defence of the realm, no one is to go along this road." Every such order is to continue until December 31, 1947, and there are pages and pages in which these things are to happen.
There are some about which a different comment may be made. On page 14 there is Regulation 420A—these things are so numerous that you cannot be content with mere numerals but you have to use the letters of the alphabet as well, like the letters on a motor car. This regulation refers to unlawful gaming parties. I am far from saying that this is a regulation which ceases to be valuable because

119
the war has come to an end. There may be some unlawful gaming parties, so I am entirely on the side of those who would like to stop them; but surely the proper way is not by continuing a Defence of the Realm Regulation made during the war largely for the protection of soldiers and the like when they were in London. If this is going to be pursued I hope that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will urge that we should have an Act of Parliament about it.
I can give plenty of other illustrations but I do not want to keep it up. There is a more important point to which I would venture to direct my noble friend's attention. He did not mention it in his speech, but there was one passage in his speech which made me think he took a different view. He said that these were merely temporary extensions until December 31, 1947, and that when that strictly limited period comes to an end and if there were regulations which were needed any longer, legislation would be proposed in the ordinary form. I am very glad to hear his assurance. I do not want to trap or catch anybody, but the thing which most disturbed me on this subject when I acquainted myself with the debate in another place, was the declaration made by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, who said: "You may ask why we choose 31st December, 1947, as closing time. Why do we do that? Perhaps October would be an equally good day." But he gave a reason. I say quite sincerely that the reason greatly alarms me and, I think, some other members of this House. He said that we had to carry on these things until December 31, 1947, and if we had to continue any of them after that we should be able to do it under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I do not like that at all. Any old Parliamentarian knows what happens in that Bill. It is taken on the last day of the Session, or nearly so. I rather think I see a noble Lord on the Bench opposite who took charge of the last one. It is for practical reasons a thing which is carried without much examination. If you are going to prolong these regulations by the simple process of putting them into that Bill I must say I do not think you are playing fair by Parliament. Parliament is entitled to be asked to consider whether something ought to be continued. I was very glad to hear the Lord Chan-
120
cellor say just now that his view of the matter was that if any of them had to be prolonged beyond I that day it ought to be done by bringing in legislation in the ordinary form.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Viscount is saying; I agree that it ought to be by legislation in the ordinary way, but it was said that it would not be done if there was a large number of them. In that event the Home Secretary said in the course of discussion in the other place that if he had to use the Expiring Laws Continuance Act he would put in a special Schedule. I do not think that is altogether satisfactory and I do not think that any method is altogether satisfactory except bringing in proper legislation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The Lord Chancellor was no doubt careful to notice that I realized he was expressing his own view. Then there are some of these regulations in respect of which there is very special reason for consideration. Some of these regulations do deal with things like the liberty of the subject and with right to enter premises that cannot be entered under the ordinary law, and it is a most grave matter that we should deal with these as merely a tiresome lot of details chucked into a schedule, and then approve the lot. I do think that before the Committee stage is taken somebody should find time to look into these things in rather more detail, to see whether there may not be one or two of a different character from what was suggested.
That is really all I want to say. I remember long ago, when I was in the House of Commons, hearing. Mr. Baldwin, who I think was then President of the Board of Trade—I am sure my noble friend beside me will remember this—moving the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. In referring to the Schedule, which contained everything from optical glass to rare chemicals, he said it looked to him like the catalogue of a marine store dealer. Really that is the kind of impression you get by reading this Schedule. It is impossible to discuss it at great length on Second Reading. There is nothing to discuss on Second Reading except the form of the Bill, and that has been dealt with very fairly and in not too complacent a manner by the Lord Chancellor in his opening speech.

121
I want to make one further contribution which is in favour of the Bill. It was not referred to by the Lord Chancellor. It is quite true that these things are to go on till December 31, 1947, which seems far enough off, but it is subject to this, that at the top of page 2 of the Bill is written:
"Provided that His Majesty may at any time by Order in Council revoke any such Defence Regulation either in whole or in part."
And I am glad therefore that the Government retain to themselves the right to knock some of these things on the head.
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has dealt with this Bill in such an engaging fashion that it is likely to slip through your Lordships' House amidst smiles of welcome. He almost, but not quite, quoted Shakespeare, about ill-favoured Audrey—" A poor thing, but mine own.'' Nevertheless, it is a Bill which does require looking at with care, for the powers it conveys are very sweeping and the form of them has few precedents. Your Lordships will remember very vividly the highly controversial debate we had not very long ago on the question whether those Orders in Council made during the war should have validity for a period of five years or two years, and your Lordships very reluctantly left the Bill as it stood with a figure of five years in order not to embark on a conflict with the other House. I think we are very glad that the Government have adopted the view that was held by many of us at that time, and have not again asked Parliament to provide for a period of five years for these very exceptional provisions, but have accepted a period of two years. So far, so good.
Now the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, the late Lord Chancellor, draws attention to the fact that at the end of the two years they are liable to be continued further in another form of what may be called emergency legislation—namely, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That is a very grave matter. In effect, on the outbreak of war in 1939, as previously in 1914, Parliament surrendered its power as a Legislature, and without examination or discussion in a single day passed a whole code of fresh enactments in order to provide for the prosecution of the war. That was done
122
as a patriotic duty, surrendering our normal powers as a Legislature in order to fulfil our duties as patriotic citizens for the sake of the prosecution of the war. But that that should be done again in December, 1947, would not be defensible. I trust that the Lord Chancellor will impress upon his colleagues that there would be very grave objection to such a course in these circumstances, merely on the ground of Parliamentary convenience. That is to say, that it should not be considered a sufficient justification for a further continuance of these most exceptional war powers in time of peace merely that the legislative programme had been very crowded and Parliament had not been able to find time to present a Bill in proper form. If such a Bill did come before this House, your Lordships would, I am sure, loot: most carefully at its provisions, and would be exceedingly reluctant to pass such Bill in that form. The Lord Chancellor said he was not going to give any pledge or any undertaking with regard to this matter, and I am sure your Lordships to-day would not wish to indulge in any threat, but at the same time you might express a fear that drastic measures might have to be resorted to in such a case.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DOCK WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

INDIA (PROCLAMATIONS OF EMERGENCY) BILL.
5.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Amendment be considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDIA (PROCLAMATIONS OF EMERGENCY) BILL.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 2, page 1, line 19, after ("any") insert ("civil").
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I desire to commend to your approval the Amendments made by the House of Commons. I may say at the outset they are not matters of any great substance. They are merely matters of clarification, and I do not think your Lordships will take any particular exception to them. The first Amendment is the insertion of the word "civil" before the word "proceedings." There was a feeling in the Commons that the powers conferred by this Bill might affect the question of personal liberty. I do not think that is really possible. It was felt that the insertion of the word "civil" would, however, be an additional safeguard, and in another place it was proposed to insert that word. In view of the fact that it is merely a precaution to make doubly sure I beg to move that this House do agree With the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 2, line 3, leave out ("they vary or reverse") and insert ("it varies or reverses")
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the second Amendment is a purely grammatical one: to insert the words "it varies or reverses" instead of the words "they vary or reverse". In the interests of grammar I commend this to the House, and move that we agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 2, line 4, leave out ("to be paid to the") and insert ("any party in whose favour the variation or reversal operates to pay to any").
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the third Amendment is again one for clarification. It was thought that there might be some ambiguity as to the person who is to make the payment, and it is therefore proposed to make this alteration so that the point may be abundantly clear. I do not think there is any substance to which I need draw your Lordships' attention, and I move that we agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

SERVICES POST-WAR PAY
5.12 p.m.
LORD CROFT LORD CROFT rose to call attention to the post-war code of pay, allowances and Service Pensions and Gratuities in Gmd. Paper 6715; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling your Lordships' attention to the White Paper on the Post-War Code of Pay, Allowances and Service Pensions and Gratuities for Members of the Forces Below Officer Rank, I must at the outset say that I think it is regrettable that since the whole intention of the Government, quite rightly, is to give some hope of definite careers in the three Services, conditions of pay and allowances for officers have not been announced simultaneously. The great need, it seems to me and I am sure your Lordships will agree, is to get experienced members of the Forces who fought through this last great war, to stay on; but even now, six months after the end of the war with Japan, there is no indication as to what the career really is for which we are asking other ranks to stay on in the Services. The proposals before us, welcome though they are as indicative of the new outlook of the nation towards its fighting men, appear to me thus to put the cart before the horse. A definite decision with regard to the conditions for commissioned ranks is now imperative at an early date if we are not to lose the flower of our young officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers, and if we are clearly to demonstrate to all the Services the fact that real careers are offered and where they lead to.
Taking the scheme broadly, I am very glad to see that the Government has decided to carry out in most particulars the plans for post-war Services on which some of us were working as far back as two years ago. In this connexion I welcome the great uniformity which is being adopted for the three Services, and especially that marriage allowances, pensions and gratuities will be the same in all three. What a pity it is that the Government could not have gone the whole hog and had a common basis of

125
pay for all three Services, instead of certain variations which still remain with regard to some grades of skilled technicians in one Service. However, I am not going to stress that point, because it is quite clear that a very genuine effort has been made to make the conditions in the three Services similar. A closer approximation to civilian pay at long last is to be welcomed, as is the effort to make the married man's pay and allowances equivalent to £5 for a civilian, as claimed in the Paper. The doubling of recruits' pay compared with the pay pre-war is what we all have wanted and have begged for, and it brings the Services up to date. The recruits who join the Forces of the Crown in future will not be confined, as they were in days gone past, to the very patriotic or the very needy. The Services are something which a man can go into in future on somewhat comparable terms to entering into industry.
I regret that marriage allowances have not been increased in regard to payments where a number of children are concerned, but that instead a flat rate of 5s. a week,. under the Family Allowances Act, for the second child and subsequent children, has been decided upon. I feel that that is a retrogression. I think I am right in saying that at the present time the soldier gets for every child 12s. 6d., and that being the present rate I very much regret that this difference has been introduced into the scheme. I know it sounds logical that the Service man's children should be treated on exactly the same basis as the children of civilians. After all, it does make a general scheme for the whole country—one can appreciate that. I must point out, however, that, the difficulties of providing a home in the case of a married man in the Services are much greater than in the case of a civilian. A civilian, after all, can choose a home anywhere near his work, within a mile or so, or he may be able to go a considerable train journey to get to his work; whereas I think I am right in saying—I do not want to exaggerate the case—that the Service man is compelled to have his home adjoining or in very close proximity to barracks. The result of that is that in garrison centres such as Aldershot, Chatham, Portsmouth or Catterick, there is an enormous demand for such housing accommodation as is available, and prices, owing to the competition, tend to
126
be very much higher in cases where you are housing a family of several children, by reason of the very dearth of accommodation caused by this demand on the Service man to be right on the spot.
Moreover, a soldier, airman, or, man in the Navy may be suddenly ordered to a new garrison elsewhere in this country or overseas, and may have to leave his family behind. He may be unable to move them because a house is not available. This does impose a very heavy financial burden. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord- can assure us that this is not final in the realm of allowances, and that account will be taken of the case I have tried to make. I would point out to him that there are not many Service men who have very large families, and there are not likely to be many. Therefore, greater generosity in this respect would certainly not be costly. There are such good reforms in these proposals that I do hope His Majesty's Government will not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
The Services have, of course, lost a very considerable advantage in the shape of the income Tax concessions which are no longer to apply to allowances. I think that in the past some Service men have not altogether appreciated the value of that concession, but I am afraid they will feel the draught when the concession is no longer granted. To that extent, of course, the improvements in conditions are partly discounted. When the Government reduce taxation from a war basis to a peace basis—and surely it is about time that that was done—then, of course, the loss of this Income Tax concession will not be quite so marked, but so long as these gigantic rates of war taxation continue in time of peace, so long will this change be very much felt by those who have not realized the advantages of the tax concession in the past.
I regret that in the pay improvements the gap has been narrowed in the rewards for great success, as in the case of warrant officers and similar ranks. After all, there are not many warrant officers. I think it is a great pity that these men, who are the key men of efficiency, should not have had an increment similar—I know there is an improvement—to that given to those who are not holding those ranks. I know that the Socialist theory is that you must not, for fear of offending the wild mob, encourage too much merit, efficiency or

127
hard work; those must be discounted. But all of your Lordships who know the Services will, I think, agree with me that if you want the men to lead, men who will be followed, you really must have the best and they ought to receive remuneration comparable to their ability and their skill. I am not applying this to the noble Lord who is going to reply, but he will agree with me that a very large number of his noble friends and their colleagues elsewhere, have during the last four or five years always been telling us that we should emulate the example of the Russian Army. In referring to that, I desire to say at once that I pay my tribute to the great fighting quality of the Russian Army. I think very few things are comparable in history to the way in which, after those terrible disasters of the early part of the Russo-German War, they stood and fought and came back and were such an essential advantage to the whole Allied cause. But if my noble friend and those who think with him feel there is much to be learnt from the Russian Army, I would point out that there the gap between the officer and man, instead of being narrowed down, has been greatly widened. Whereas at the beginning of the war the Russian officer was not a very important person—he always had a Commissar standing behind him—as the war went on and they shed their politics and got down to real combatant soldiering, the pay of the Russian officer went up, and now indeed he is in a class completely by himself. He is a member of the new aristocracy of that great country and he receives a rate of pay which is incomparably greater, compared to other ranks, than that which is given in this country.
Whilst we make these small criticisms, I believe your Lordships will be more than pleased with the equation of fighting men with tradesmen. This is a reform which I personally have long desired. During the war my colleagues and I were deeply impressed with the fact that the fighting soldier has in these days to be a very skilled man, with a knowledge of a great number of different weapons and their tactical use, and in many cases has to have as much skill in the handling of vehicles and repairs as men in the technical corps. Having regard to that and to the fact that casualties amongst the fighting
128
men were immensely greater than those amongst men in the various technical corps which serviced the Army, it was a monstrous injustice that the highly skilled fighting man should lag in pay so far behind his other comrades who so frequently, although by no means always, were in positions of very much less danger. I think your Lordships will, therefore, welcome very cordially the removal of this glaring injustice, and also the fact that the combatant soldier and his technical brother can obtain stars which qualify them for equal recognition of skilled services in their particular work. It is also a great gain that pay is to be simplified by reducing the number of different rates.
My chief complaint against His Majesty's Government in the presentation of their White Paper is that they have reproduced in it a plan of pay before policy. It seems to me now to be quite essential that they should make an announcement as to what their policy is for the future defence of this country, explaining why this revised code of pay and allowances and service pensions is necessary, what are the main purposes for which the forces are to be used, and what are the numbers of the forces envisaged. Until this broad information is forthcoming and until we know the conditions under which the commissioned ranks are asked to continue, the opportunities and hopes of definite careers are not disclosed. As a consequence we are losing every day—I emphasize the words "every day"—hundreds of most valuable officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who, if they really knew the terms and conditions of service in the career open to them, would remain in the Services, in which they have made so great a contribution to victory.
I must say one word with regard to pensions, which, I presume, will usually be given to a sailor, soldier or airman when he leaves the Service at some age round about 42 years. I am sure all will welcome the new pension rates, but unless a man leaving the service finds definite work on discharge it will, of course, still be rather near starvation rate. It is therefore immensely important that the Government of the day should insist that a far larger proportion of jobs under the Government shall be

129
kept open for ex-Service men, for only in that way can a pensioner be regarded as having a really secure future. A terrible lack of imagination was shown on this subject by Governments prior to the war—because I do not think the war period counted, and I must include in that all Governments—and I hope it may be cured by a resolute determination to see that every Service man of good character, not trained as a skilled technician for a trade, shall have the first choice of those thousands of openings in our modern bureaucracy which have hitherto been filled by those with no such claim to national consideration.
I welcome what has been described by the heads of two of the Fighting Services as a charter, and what I think was described by the First Lord of the Admiralty as "a little revolution in peace-time conditions," and which in so many respects appears to carry out the plans for simplification and higher status which were worked out by the predecessors of the present Government. I should like to assure the noble Lord for that reason that even if it is "a little revolution we are all glad to join in it. But it would be wrong to give the impression that the Services are receiving conditions much superior to those existing at this moment, although I admit that they are an improvement. I would call the attention of the noble Lord to page 18 of the White Paper, as showing that actually, taking a comparable number of men in the three Services under the new scheme, as compared with a comparable number at the present day, the actual cost of the Army is slightly down, while that of the other two Services is slightly up. I wish, however, to be absolutely fair to the Government, and I presume that that is due to the fact that children's allowances no longer come into the picture, and, it may be, Income Tax as well. I merely quote that to show that there is not so great an increase as might be supposed when this is spoken of as a charter.
As far as other ranks are concerned, the main proposals are, I feel good, and to be welcomed as leading to greater uniformity between the Services, as likely to attract recruits, and as eliminating many of the different scales of pay so confusing to soldiers in the past and so exasperating to the pay department. I think that we shall all, on whatever side of the House we sit, wish to give a wel-
130
come to the new scale of gratuities on discharge at the end of long and good service. Let us hope that we may now learn where this new plan is meant to lead, and the form of commissioned service of the future, and what is the real career held out to men of all the Services. I beg to move.
5.33 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the remarks of my noble friend in whose name this Motion stands. Like him, I welcome the simplification of Service pay for other ranks; like him I welcome particularly the recognition of the skill required by the infantry soldier. It has always appeared to me a subject of legitimate grievance that the man who does the fighting should not at least earn the same pay as others, and I emphasized that in another place in a speech which I made upon the Army Estimates. My only regret is that that recognition could not be granted during the war, while they were fighting; but it must be a matter of pride to the infantry and to the Fighting Services in general that their record in this war has earned them the recognition that they are no longer the least considered part of the Army, at any rate as far as pay is concerned.
I should like to draw attention to certain interrelated statements in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Croft, has dealt with them to some extent, but I should like to consider them a little more carefully. On page 5, where the special features of Service remuneration are considered, the White Paper says:
"Consideration has been given to the question whether these two features"—
that is, accommodation, rationing, and clothing; and marriage allowances—
"must be retained, or whether a system of inclusive remuneration such as is normally found in civil life could be introduced into the Services, charges being male for items provided in kind, and the married man and the single man being paid alike the rate for the job.' It is, however, essential that members of the Services should be accommodated, fed and clothed to certain common standards. It is also inherent in the conditions of Service life that personnel are liable to frequent changes of station and to service overseas; and these incidents of Service life inevitably affect the married man to a greater extent than the bachelor, since they frequently involve his separation from his family And the provision of a separate home. The conclusion has therefore been reached that these two special features must be retained in the new pay code."

131
I would now call attention to page 7, where an attempt is made to compare the basis of Service pay with earnings in civil life. You will notice that in that case the basis of comparison is not the bachelor but the married man with no children. There is still recognition in this White Paper of what I might term the tripartite basis of Service pay: one rate for the bachelor, lower than he might expect to earn in a civil occupation, another rate for the married man with no children, and another for the married man with children; but in this White Paper the balance has been distorted, in my submission, by lopping off a part of the pay—namely, the rather generous children's allowances—so that no more is there a low rate for the bachelor, a comparable rate for the married man and a good rate for the married man with a family.
Let me draw attention to a specific example. Under present rates, a married man with two children would draw 86s. 6d. a week with his marriage allowance and children's allowances. Under the new scale he would draw 82s. 6d. Under the present scale, with his compulsory allotment and allowances, his wife would get a minimum of 60s. Under the new scale his wife would get a minimum of 50s. 6d. It is perfectly true that in this White Paper, in the section which deals with marriage allowances, it is laid down that the soldier is expected to contribute more than his compulsory allotment out of his increase in pay, but what is the effect on two men in the same battalion and living in barracks together? The bachelor would appear to get 42s. a week, if a "two-star" soldier, whereas the married man with two children is left with 31s. 6d. a week, and, if he is a good father, he will feel bound to contribute at least 10s. of that to his family. You will therefore have two men living side by side, one with 42s. to spend, and one with 21s. 6d. That result is obtained by distorting, as I submit, the tripartite basis of Service pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Croft, has pointed out that on page 18 of this White Paper, where the cost of the 1938 Army under the present code and under the new code is compared, there is an actual reduction in the cost to the Exchequer of some £280,000. I think that when we remember the encomiums which greeted this White Paper when it first came out, we cannot
132
help feeling a little cynical when we find that the Treasury are up on the deal. We ask ourselves how that has happened, and I do not think that the reason is far to seek. As Lord Croft has pointed out, we do not yet know the size, structure or cost of our post-war Forces. The Treasury are not in the habit of giving blank cheques. They are unlikely to give the War Office, the Air Ministry or the Admiralty a blank cheque to increase the pay and allowances of the Services until they know what the cost will be; and so we have the fact that, under the proposed code, the additional cost is less than £1,000,000. Now I think that is a pity.
This is a revolution in Service pay to simplify and create a common basis for the three Services. It is an advance. I would beg the Government not to blot their copybook, so to speak, by being mean towards the married man. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is at present presiding over a Commission which is to study the population question. Surely, it is hardly an encouragement for the Services to produce children when they find that the position of the married man has not improved but has deteriorated. In another place, there was a debate during the last Parliament on the Children's Allowances Bill, and I well remember that in the Committee stage of that Bill there were protests from all sides of the House when it was proposed, under Clause 13, to withdraw from Service men the right to receive the allowance of 5s. after the first child, under the national scheme. Protests from all sides of the House succeeded in retaining that right for Service men. So I cannot help feeling a little bitter when I find after a lapse of time, although they have kept the right to the national allowance they have had children's allowances deducted, despite the assurances then given. I would beg the Government to consider that matter again very carefully. It is bound, not unnaturally, to cause dissatisfaction in the Services. I do not think that the encouragement which should be found in this White Paper will be forthcoming unless this reform is carried out and unless there is a much more generous attitude towards the men who, after all, have the greatest commitments.
5.43 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I do not propose to detain you for

133
many moments, but there are one or two matters concerning the Royal Air Force upon which I would like to touch. First of all I would like to say that I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House are grateful to my noble friend Lord Croft for this opportunity of debating this most important subject at this particular time. I think this is the first attempt of real magnitude that has been made to make Service Life economically comparable to civilian life in peace-time, and to that extent all of us who take an interest in the Services must welcome these proposals. But, at the same time, I fear that these proposals do not go far enough, and I think that in several directions which Lord Croft and Lord De L'Isle have just indicated there are anomalies and faults which will need to be remedied.
The proposals go some way, but pay is not everything by a long chalk as regards contentment in the Forces. I hope the Government will address themselves to making Service life, apart from pay, much more attractive than it used to be in peace-time, by removing some of the small but irksome restrictions for many of which it is difficult to find justification, and which always annoy while doing little good. Such things as sleeping-out passes, I suggest, might be granted on a tar greater scale than ever before. Then concessions might be made in the matter of according permission to wear civilian clothes whenever a soldier, sailor or an airman is out off duty. Sympathetic attention to such small things in Service life would do much to make happy, fit and contented men such as we must have for our Imperial and international defence.
I wish to deal with one or two matters especially concerning the Royal Air Force. I am glad that the Air Ministry has not fallen for the blandishments of the War Office—which I well remember were often put forward in the days when I was in office—designed to inducing us to extend our tour overseas in order to come in line with the War Office. Our answer always used to be: "Let the War Office come down to the Air Ministry's standard." I hope that the War Office may be able to do that in the future. I am delighted to see that we have maintained our position of having a maximum overseas tour of three years, with an even lesser period in certain theatres of war. I trust that the noble Lord will be able to convey the
134
gist of some of these re narks to his noble friend the Secretary of State for Air. I hope that in the future we are going to see the Air Force carry out all its troop movements by air. I cannot see any reason why the Royal Air Force should not fly its men, and their families, from place to place as an exercise, and also as a means of getting the ground crews into the air. It: is very curious that whenever one finds a contented station it is always a place where the ground airmen have a chance of going up in the aeroplanes. The more the Royal Air Force flies the better is the Royal Air Force and the happier. Service it is.
The R.A.F. system of pay and pro motion, as the White Paper says, is based on the group principle, and I am glad that the groups have been reduced to three. Nevertheless the smooth functioning of our group system is dependent upon and is interlocked with two things; first 'establishments, and second a central system of records and postings. If those two do not work smoothly our group system is liable to break down. Before the war we had to have a central posting system at the Air Ministry in England, which did all the postings for all the men in every theatre of war Including Iraq and India, because those men could only be posted to any vacancies in their group if there was a vacancy in the establishment of that group, and the vacancy for a man in Iraq might well be a vacancy in India. Therefore, that postulates a central posting system. And, if there is not sufficient flexibility in that central posting system there is gang to be discontent. I hope there will be an improvement in that as compared with what existed before the war. The second point is that each man in order to get promotion within his group must pass a trade test. Would the noble Lord draw the attention of the Air Ministry to the fact that sometimes at overseas stations men were at a considerable disadvantage in that they only got a chance of appearing before a travelling Test Board, say in the Sudan, once a year, whereas men in the same group in England could go for their trade test at any time? This causes great resentment. If we could have a much more flexible system of Trade Test Boards, I am sure that the group system would work more smoothly.

135
One further point, which concerns the proposals for air crews. These mean the introduction of the short-term system for those air crews who are not commissioned. My noble and gallant friend Viscount Trenchard was, I think—indeed I know he was—instrumental in bringing about that most successful short-service commission system before the war, and it is now going to be extended to those who do not hold Commissions who serve in air crew category. I hope that at the same time as this system is introduced there is going be introduced an even more active organization for ensuring employment for the short-service people when they come out of the Royal Air Force. We had a good organization before the war which placed something over 80 per cent. of the short-service officers in good appointments in civil life. Let us be sure that we extend that system to those who are non-commissioned, to those who will be coming out shortly.
Before the war there was a special Air Ministry sponsored scheme with insurance companies whereby any man serving as a pilot or on air crew duties could, under favourable terms, insure his life in favour of his family and thus make a provision beyond that which the Government makes for dependents in the case of war. I should like to ask if the Air Ministry's attention could be drawn to the desirability of resuscitating that provision and if necessary whether the Treasury—that Department which is so easy to approach but not so easy to obtain success with—could be approached to see if some subvention could not be made to ensure that the men in non-commissioned categories had an opportunity of insuring their lives and of paying the premiums by thrift—premiums which it will be within their capacity to meet. I welcome these proposals as a half-way measure towards the complete structure of Service life, glorious and fine and comparable in every way, during and after Service, with civilian life in this country.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I shall not detain your lordships for more than a few minutes, but I should like to support whole-heartedly the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Croft, on this subject. I should particularly like to refer to two points which I think are of the greatest importance. The first point which
136
Lord Croft made was that we have not yet had a scheme for officers pay. A large number of these officers got their Commissions from the ranks and they are being penalized. A scheme for the pay of other ranks has gone out but not one for officers. They are the same men in many cases and they are being penalized. They will suffer, as the best men will get the worst deal in civil life by entering it now. In that connexion I want to refer to another point. The noble Lord who introduced the Motion referred to the gap. It was not long ago that I heard an important member of the Government in another place get up and take pride in the narrowing of the gap, not it is true, in connexion with pay, but in connexion with money which had to be given out under another category. I should just like to give my view on all this. I am not going into all the detail which Lord De L'Isle and Dudley or Lord Croft entered into. But it is most important that when people are looking to what the Service will do or into what career they will go, they should have a career between the ages of their lives which matter.
I believe that it is between the ages of twenty-eight and forty that the pay should increase at a much greater rate than it does in this scheme. By that I mean not only the ages but the rank. If a man sees that he has got a chance of getting on and that when he grows up the prize will be still greater, it is better. It is hard to say that in the White Paper the gap between a warrant officer and a private is not closed a good deal more than it was in the past. I hope also that with the officers we shall be careful not to close the gap between the Pilot Officer, or the young Lieutenant and the General, too much. Let them get up quickly and get good pay and good chances of promotion when they are thirty and above.
5.57 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, let me begin by saying that this is, I believe, the first occasion on which the recent White Paper has been discussed in either House of Parliament. I think it is right and proper that it should be discussed. I welcome the occasion and I wish to express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Croft, for having introduced this Motion to your Lordships and for the very friendly way in which he has

137
done so. Indeed, as regards all the speeches which have been made by noble Lords today, the Government have no cause to complain. Of course there are points of criticism. What scheme can be submitted without arousing a certain measure of criticism? But the general temper of the discussion has undoubtedly been one of approbation. It was in November, in the course of a debate which the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, opened on that occasion, and in which the noble Lord, Lord Croft, participated, that a request was made that at the earliest possible moment an announcement should be made by His Majesty's Government as to the future terms of service in the Forces. I was able on the following day, I think, to state that so far as the other ranks were concerned, publication would take place in the middle of December. This is the Paper we are now discussing, which was produced in the latter part of December. Noble Lords have stressed the desirability of there being published at the earliest moment a similar Paper with regard to officers. His Majesty's Government share the desire that that should be published at the earliest moment, and I can tell your Lordships that the expectation is that such a Paper wild be published in the second half of next month, February, that is, within the next three or four weeks. Let me say that just as the terms promulgated in the present White Paper will take effect as from July 1, 1946, so the terms to be set out in the White Paper as to officers will also take effect as from July 1, 1916.
The fundamental principles underlying the scheme set out in this White Paper are those of simplicity, so that the soldier shall know clearly what he is entitled to receive, an equitable measure of uniformity as between the three Services, and a broad measure of comparability with civilian earnings. Also, for the future, to which attention has already been drawn, they put the skilled tradesman and the lighting man on an equal footing for the first time, and indeed show that we regard the skilled fighting man as exercising a trade not less valuable, and one which should not be less well remunerated than those which in the past have been denominated trades in the Services.
Some emphasis has been placed by the noble Lord, Lord Croft, and by the noble
138
Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, on the question of marriage allowances, that in future there will be under this White Paper a flat-rate marriage allowance of 35s. a week. It has been suggested that that operates, or might operate, as a great hardship on a soldier compared with what he is receiving at present. Let me make it clear to noble Lords that this scheme is directed to attracting into the Forces soldiers for the Regular Army of the future, recruits from outside the Army, and also those who are now serving on war-time engagements. Those who are now serving on war-tine engagements, and who are in receipt of marriage allowances at the present rate, will continue to receive those marriage allowances at the present rate subject to some slight modification as to the increased qualifying payment and also, as has been mentioned, liability to Income Tax.
When I say they will continue to receive the allowances at the existing rate, I mean they will continue to receive them as long as this general position is better than that under the present White Paper. I do not think noble Lords Lave altogether appreciated how very beneficial this flat rate may be to the soldier. While it is true that it is payable at that same rate irrespective of the number of children, it is equally true that it is payable at that rate where there are no children. It is equally true, in contradistinction to the present code, that this rate of 35s. a week is payable when the children have passed out of entitlement to children's allowances altogether. Once a man is married, the mere fact of his marriage, so long as his wife lives, enables her to receive during the period of his service a sum of 35s. a week irrespective of whether there are any children or riot. That is a very substantial advantage to which I do not think sufficient attention has been paid. I ought to mention that steps are being taken to bring this matter to the attention of those in the Forces.
The White Paper is, of course, not a very exciting document to read, and not altogether simple to read. Indeed, I must safeguard myself in addressing your Lordships by saying that my statements are broad statements without "ifs" and" buts, which will be found in the White Paper. That is inevitable in addressing your Lordships unless at inordinate length. Steps are being taken to apprise those in the Forces of these new condi-

139
tions. There are two booklets already produced and in process of issue to those now serving in the Services, so that they may know the future that lies in front of them if they remain in the Service. Both of those booklets have a title ending with a question mark: the Admiralty, "Staying On?" and the Regular Army, "Why Drop Out?" I think your Lordships would find those books not unattractive, and if you care to apply to me for copies I shall be very glad to furnish you with them.
The noble Viscount as well as the noble Lord opposite, referred to the question of the narrowing of the gap. I have not had an opportunity during the course of the debate of actually making a calculation of the figures; nor was it a point which had been so present in my mind that I had prepared myself with the figures beforehand in a form which would enable me to answer the question. Perhaps, however, I may give one or two figures which I do happen to have before me. I will see if I can do a calculation whilst I am standing here, and learn what the result may be. In the case of a private of, let us say, five years' service, he was getting 47s. 3d. a week, and a sergeant under that scheme was getting 68s. 3d. per week, making a gap of 21s. Under the new scheme the same private will get 52s. 6d. and the sergeant 94s. As I do the calculation rapidly, I make that to be a difference of 41s. 6d. a gap of 41s. 6d. under the new scheme compared with a gap of 21s. under the old scheme. Whilst the debate was taking place, I made such other rough calculations as I could. It would appear that in each case the gap is increased. I do not wish to make a categorical statement, because I have not had an opportunity of making a careful check, but that is the way in which the figures seem to me to work out; that is, that the gap is greater and not less than it was.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. I cannot quite follow that, but I will read Hansard. I would like to know what the percentage would be for a sergeant as against a private under the old scheme and what the percentage is under the new scheme. On a percentage basis, let us say, the sergeant got double; well, does he still get double?
LORD NATHAN: As the noble Viscount will readily understand, to calculate in percentages is something I cannot attempt while standing actually at the Box. It will, however, be an interesting calculation, which I will make, and I will inform the noble Viscount as to the outcome of my study.
The noble Lord who opened this debate raised a question which certainly strikes a chord in my own mind, for it relates to the welfare of the fighting man. That was with regard to openings being reserved for ex-Service men. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is already aware of the fact that there are many openings reserved for the ex-Service man, and I have no reason to doubt that further opportunities will be created for him. The whole question which he raised in this respect will certainly receive the most careful consideration.
LORD CROFT: Is that all that you can say?
LORD NATHAN: I do not think I am prepared to go further at the moment than to say that the provision of further openings will be given the mast sympathetic consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, for the most part dealt with the position of the married man. In that regard I might say that noble Lords do less than justice to this scheme when they adjure the Government to be fair to the married man. The married man, while it is true that he will not have a children's allowance based upon the number of his children, will have an allowance with the attributes which I have already mentioned. His children's allowance, as such, will be limited to the allowance under the Family Allowances Act of 5s for the second and subsequent children.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The whole point of my remarks was not so much the injustice to the soldier serving now, but that the scales in this White Paper have been weighted unfavourably for the married man in the future. In fact, he gets less under the new code than at present, and the shoe pinches where it hurts most. It is quite clear that a married man without children benefits, but the man with children does not.
LORD NATHAN: I mentioned in my opening observations that there was an

141
attempt to get a general comparability with civilian life, and in civilian life, where a civilian worker receives his remuneration, whether salary or wages, he receives it subject to the commitment of looking after his children, without any increase being made in his remuneration by reason of the fact that he has children. That, in future, will be the position so far as the Service man is concerned.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Not the bachelor.
LORD NATHAN: The bachelor, in the case of the Service man, will not, for the reason that has been outlined in the Paper, be entitled to the amount provided for marriage allowance. But the basis of Comparability between those in the Forces and those who are not is, as the noble Lord is aware, the two-star married man. On that footing the amount attributed to the soldier's pay is 35s. but we have in fact made the basic pay, both of the married man and of the bachelor, 42s.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who speaks, of course, with an intimate acquaintance with all that concerns matters of the air, both as a skilled airman and as a former Minister in the Air Ministry, will not expect me to follow him in some of the technical matters to which he referred in relation to the Air Force. I have no competence to do so. I can say to the noble Lord, however, that he may assume that the matters which he has mentioned to-day will be brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, however, did make one observation to which I will refer, which was of general application. He adjured the Government to do its best to make Service life more attractive. That observation falls upon a receptive mind. There has been of recent years, as of course the noble Lord knows, a great amelioration in the strictness of the discipline—what to-day would be thought, perhaps, the pettifogging restrictions of the past. The position has greatly changed. The whole approach in temper of mind is quite different from what it was many years ago, and such questions as sleeping-out passes, and the wearing of plain clothes, no longer present the same difficulties as they did in days gone by. I think that in the course of my few observations I have already
142
mentioned the points raised by the noble and gallant Viscount, and there is little more that I need say except to thank the noble Lord for raising this question and for the manner in which he has done so.
I ought to add, and I wish to add, as a final word, that we look to this White Paper as a factor—not the only factor but an important one—in making it clear to those who may be considering their future, the young men looking for a career and those already in the Forces who feel they would like to remain there if conditions were satisfactory, that a career with such conditions is open to them.
6.15 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships with any further remarks. I am glad to think that on this subject there is no great difference of opinion between us. I hope that the noble Lord will look into the actual question of the gap between the recruit and the warrant officer, but still more I hope that he will give his serious consideration to the question of marriage allowances and the child allowance, because there is no doubt that it does make a great deal of difference. I think it is generally admitted that, anyhow as far as, the first child is concerned, the married man does not get the kind of assistance he has been wont to receive during the war period. I hope he will consider that matter, because it really is in the interests of the Services in the days to come that he should do so. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUBSIDY TO AUSTRALIAN FLYING CLUBS.
6.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they would give details of the subsidy recently announced by the Australian Government as payable to the flying clubs in that Dominion, said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have been asked to reply on behalf of my noble friend. I understand that His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth recently approved, subject to review at the end of 1946, of payments to aero clubs

143
on the following basis: A payment of £25 for every completed period of fifty hours flown by any one aircraft; the issue of a bonus of £50 for each pupil trained ab initio to "A" Licence standard; the issue of an additional bonus for each licence renewed on the club aircraft. The Commonwealth Director of Civil Aviation is empowered somewhat to increase the amount of these bonuses in the case of
144
licences issued or renewed at country centres if the club so requests, and if after investigation the increase is found to be justified. Where possible, suitable hangar accommodation will be made available free of charge.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Thank you very much.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past six o'clock.