Sitting of 15 December 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half-past
Two o'Clock

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

    Civilian Employees, Northern Ireland
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that present regulations as to civilian employees in the R.N.A.S. becoming established favour those who worked as civilians during the recent war at the expense of ex-Service men, and that in Northern Ireland those who did not volunteer for the forces have consequently a great advantage over those who did; and if he will amend his regulations so as to ensure more fair treatment.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The present regulations governing the establishment of Admiralty industrial employees were agreed with the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council, and apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I regret that I am unable to amend those regulations.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the Civil Lord aware of the monstrous situation that results—that those who volunteered and served in the Armed Forces, if they have survived, are kept out of employment by men Who never volunteered and who were in well-paid civilian service right through the war?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot agree that there is anything monstrous in this regulation. It is a regulation which applies to all employing bodies, whether Government or private, and that is, that a man who has not given service to that particular employing body cannot have that service counted. There is no
    1178
    difference made between the ex-Service man in Northern Ireland who volunteered for service and the man in the United Kingdom who also volunteered.
    Sir R. Ross: Is not the Civil Lord aware of the obvious fact that there is a tremendous difference in Northern Ireland, where the National Service Act did not apply, and where, if a man did not volunteer for service he was not called up? Does he not think that it is. monstrous that people who did not volunteer to serve should have employment at the expense of those who served?
    Mr. Edwards: I am aware that the Government of Northern Ireland did not think fit to apply the National Service Act.
    Sir R. Ross: That is not true.
    Mr. Edwards: In any case, it was not applied in Northern Ireland. Whoever was responsible for that, the plain fact is that it was not applied. The volunteer in the United Kingdom is every bit as good as the man who volunteered in Northern Ireland and served.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the Civil Lord correct the statement that the Government of Northern Ireland did not think fit to apply the National Service Act? Ulster was excluded from it by this House despite the request of Ulster to be included.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Edwards: I want to repeat what I have just said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] It is a statement of fact that the National Service Act did not apply in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the volunteer in Northern Ireland was no better than the volunteer in Great Britain.
    Professor Savory: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Northern Ireland were unanimous in asking that the Act should apply in Northern Ireland, and that all the Ulster Members were unanimous about it? It was the United Kingdom Government who did not apply it. It was the British who refused to apply it.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Edwards: So far as an answer is concerned, I have already answered.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: If any special favours are being sought for those from Northern Ireland, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are thousands of men who are in exactly the same position, who did a jolly good job for the Allies, and who came from Eire?
    Sir R. Ross: Will not the Civil Lord withdraw the insult he has put on Northern Ireland generally by making a statement exactly contrary to the facts, which I know he did in ignorance?
    Mr. Edwards: There is no question of an insult. I can assure the House I had no thought of any insult. What I said was what I considered to be a statement of fact.
    Sir R. Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many Eire citizens are now employed as civilians at Eglinton R.N.A. station; and how many of these have served in His Majesty's Forces in war.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Seventeen citizens of Eire are employed as civilians at the Naval Air Station, Eglinton; six of them served in His Majesty's Forces in war.
    Sir R. Ross: Will the Civil Lord arrange for those who are citizens of a country which is now going out of the Commonwealth, and who never served in the British Forces, to be removed, and for ex-Service men who did serve, to be put into their positions?
    Mr. Edwards: We shall do nothing of the sort.
    Sir R. Ross: Why not?

    H.M.S. "Ajax"
    Mr. Donnerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision not to recommission H.M.S. "Ajax," he will give an undertaking in the light of the historic achievements of this ship and her war-time company that she will be broken up for scrap in this country rather than sold to a foreign Power.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): No, Sir.
    Mr. Donner: Would it not be more appropriate, as well as more dignified, to break up this ship for scrap, rather than to haggle with a territorial-grasping South American Republic about prices?
    Commander Noble: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us where this ship is now?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is another question.
    Mr. Chetwynd: If there are to be these protracted delays in disposing of this vessel, will not my hon. Friend re-consider the question of breaking up this ship for scrap, which is very badly needed by the steel industry?
    Mr. Dugdale: That possibility is being considered, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly after the House resumes after the Christmas Recess.

    Officers (Overpayments)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that, under Admiralty Fleet Order 5228/42, it is laid down that overpayments to civil servants in His Majesty's Forces need not be claimed back and can be written off, he will extend this concession to officers who may have received overpayments through a mistake of his Department.
    Mr. Dugdale: The regulations in Admiralty Fleet Order 5228/42, which refer to overpayments of balance of civil pay to civil servants who were serving in the Armed Forces, do not provide that recovery of the whole overpayment can be waived, but merely limit the amount to be recovered. When an overpayment of Service pay and allowances is made to a serving officer, whether a civil servant or otherwise, and has been received by him in good faith, the Admiralty has discretion to waive recovery of the amount overpaid, either in whole or in part, particularly when recovery would involve undue financial hardship, or when the overpayment was made under a genuine misunderstanding due to ambiguity of orders or regulations.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any, and if so how many, payments have been made to officers in these circumstances, and is

    1181
    there any reason why an order should not be published definitely placing officers on the same footing as civil servants? Furthermore, is it not a fact that the first claim that is made against a relative of an officer who loses his life on active service is in respect of any advances of pay or overpayments?
    Mr. Dugdale: Quite a number have been repaid. The position in the Navy is the same as it is in the other Services. As regards Service pay and allowances, repayments are made in a number of cases, although I cannot say the exact number; it is quite a large number.

    Ship Construction (Suspended Work)
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in how many ships under construction is work at present suspended.
    Mr. Dugdale: Work is at present suspended on four light fleet carriers, three cruisers, one magnetic survey vessel and one small experimental vessel.
    Commander Noble: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the principal limiting factor in this case is the speed of development of new materials or a shortage of money?
    Mr. Dugdale: Naturally both factors have to be taken into consideration. We have not an unlimited supply of money, but at the same time we want to see that we get the most up-to-date development possible, and in many cases it is desirable to wait for that before proceeding further.
    Sir R. Ross: When will the work be recommenced on these vessels, or is it so indefinite that a date cannot be given?
    Mr. Dugdale: Work in regard to one ship will be resumed quite early, but I cannot give an answer at the moment in regard to the other two.
    Sir R. Ross: Is that the cruiser?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, the light carrier.

    Electrical Engineering Staff
    Mr. Channonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now agree to discuss with the recognised staff organisation concerned and with the Admiralty Administrative
    1182
    Whitley Council the proposed navalisation of the Electrical Engineering Branch of his Department.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The principle of navalisation is not a matter which falls within the ambit of Whitley machinery or of negotiation with a staff association. The effect on the future prospects of the civilian staff now serving in the Electrical Engineering Department, which would depend on the extent to which the principle is applied, has already been discussed in a preliminary way by the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council, and will be further discussed with the staff side of that Council as soon as the official side are in a position to make definite proposals.

    Return of Fleets
    Sir R. Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to issue the Return of Fleets in 1949.
    Mr. Dugdale: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 11th February last to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas).
    Sir R. Ross: Why is it the policy of the Admiralty to keep this House in complete ignorance of the relative strengths of the naval forces?
    Mr. Dugdale: As I stated, up to date information is not available in respect of foreign fleets, and considerations of security make us feel it would be better to wait until such information is obtainable before publishing our own.

    National Service Men (Officer Rank)
    Mr. Benn Levyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what opportunities will be given to National Service men in the Royal Navy to become officers.
    Mr. Dugdale: It has been decided that all National Service men in the Royal Navy shall have the opportunity to reach officer rank during their period of full-time service. National Service men with no special technical or professional qualifications will be eligible for officer rank in the Executive and Supply and Secretariat Branches. Those with special qualifications will be

    1183
    eligible also for officer rank in the Engineering, Electrical, Instructor or Medical Branches.
    About two-thirds of the candidates will be selected at the end of their new entry training and will then undergo a special officers' training course lasting about four months, at the end of which those who are successful will become probationary Midshipmen R.N.V.R. The remaining one-third of the places will, however, be reserved for men whose qualities do not emerge at an early stage in their service, so that they may be given full opportunity to be considered for officer rank later on. Successful candidates will be required to join the R.N.V.R. and to accept the normal liabilities of R.N.V.R. officers.
    Commander Noble: Is it expected that these men will be promoted during their 18 months, or during their service afterwards?
    Mr. Dugdale: After their 15 weeks' initial training, they will be promoted as probationary midshipmen.
    Mr. Gallacher: When these men become officers, will they be able to go into a State "pub" and have a glass of beer with the ratings?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: How does this apply to the Royal Marines?
    Mr. Dugdale: We are working out details to apply a similar system to the Royal Marines, and we are in consultation with the War Office now on the matter.
    Mr. Symonds: Will my hon. Friend see that these National Service men have every reasonable opportunity of showing what they are capable of, because many of them seem to spend months chipping paint in the Reserve Fleet?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot accept that, but naturally the preservation of the Reserve Fleet is of great importance and some of them may be engaged on that.

  POST OFFICE

    Sub-Offices (Shop Premises)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General how many post offices are situated in the same room as shops
    1184
    carrying on businesses, such as grocers, confectioners or stationers; and in view of the extension of the work and responsibilities of the post office, whether he will now arrange for this public service to be carried on in premises arranged solely for that purpose.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): About 17,000. The amount of post office business transacted at them is generally insufficient to warrant the provision of separate offices, and the present arrangement enables the post office to give facilities over a much wider area than would otherwise be possible.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that most of this increase is connected with banking and insurance, will my right hon. Friend approach these organisations and ask them to offer their facilities to the nation rather than make use of the facilities of village grocers?
    Mr. Paling: I think the Post Office is doing a pretty good job here.
    Mr. Keeling: Is it not a good thing for the public service to be in close contact with private enterprise in 17,000 different places?
    Mr. Paling: It is a good thing to provide post offices as far as we can.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that it is still the policy of the Department to convert scale payment offices of this kind to Crown offices wherever that becomes practicable?
    Sir Stanley Reed: Does not the Postmaster-General recognise that many of these offices are doing admirable work in the rural areas, and that to curtail them would mean a great hardship to people in scattered communities?

    Engineering Grades (Pay)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Postmaster-General whether in view of the present disparity between the wages of non-skilled industrial employees at Government engineering industrial establishments and the wages of labourers and skilled workmen, Class II (B), employed by the Post Office Engineering Department, he will set up a court of inquiry to consider the wage claim of the Post Office Engineering Union.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: No, Sir. My Department is still discussing the claims with the Union.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Postmaster-General aware that many men in the Post Office Engineering Union are meanwhile having to go out into private enterprise where the pay is more commensurate with their skill; and as this matter has been going on since April, will he not grant them a court of inquiry?
    Mr. Paling: I have just said that negotiations are at present going on. I do not want to say anything in detail until these negotiations are settled.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: While these discussions are going on, will the Postmaster-General bear in mind, that it is said among the engineers in Mount Pleasant, that no one in England is on the maximum figure of pay, and that a man cannot get the maximum until he reaches the age of 34? Is he aware that these men, who are a most highly skilled group of men, are receiving less than some manual workers, while the Department they serve has increased its profits by 1,000 per cent.? Is he also aware that many of these men are below a subsistence level.
    Mr. A. Edward Davies: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, in the course of these inquiries, that the men are getting a minimum living wage, at a time when they most need it, to enable them and their families to live in decency?
    Mr. Paling: Naturally, all these facts are taken into consideration when one is negotiating a settlement.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when these negotiations will be finalised?
    Mr. Paling: I am always a little doubtful about giving a time in these matters, but I hope it will be shortly.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said a month ago.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good deal of discontent that exists in the Post Office Engineering Union is due to the fact that members
    1186
    feel there is a certain amount of camouflage in regard to the total cost of this scheme, because in Glasgow there are no labourers whatever and the Class II B skilled workers are very limited in numbers?
    Mr. Speaker: We are not the negotiating body. That is another body.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Postmaster-General if he will now say what is the reason for the delay of seven months in dealing with the claim of certain sections of the Post Office Engineering Union for an increase in pay.
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Postmaster-General what is the cause of the delay in coming to a decision regarding the wage claims, which were submitted to his Department on 26th April last by the Post Office Engineering Unions; and when he expects to arrive at a decision.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Hon. Members will appreciate that these matters cannot be dealt with in isolation. My Department put proposals to the Union on the 12th November, and discussions are still in progress.
    Mr. Gammans: What justification is there for seven months, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform the steelworkers that this is what will happen to them when they become Government servants?
    Mr. Gammansasked the Postmaster-General what is the average rate of pay of skilled worker Class II(A) employed in the telecommunications department of the Post Office as compared with the average wages paid to skilled men in private industry.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) on Wednesday, 1st December.
    Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that there is such a great disparity that men are leaving the telephone service, and what is the justification for under-paying Government servants in comparison with private enterprise?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think they are leaving the service in great numbers. Again I am driven back to the fact that

    1187
    this question cannot be dealt with in isolation. We have made an offer to these people, and we hope that a settlement will be reached before long.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the exceptional number of resignations of skilled members of the engineering department of the London Telecommunications Region of the Post Office as compared with before the war.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Wastage through voluntary resignation among skilled members of the engineering department of the London Telecommunications Region, though higher than before the war, is at the annual rate of about 4 per cent. of the total staff.
    Mr. Gammans: Is it not the case that there was practically no wastage before the war in this department; and is the reason for the men leaving this highly skilled service due to the fact that they can get a far higher rate of wages outside?
    Mr. Paling: I think that may be one of the reasons, and it is also a fact that there are far more jobs from which to choose.
    Mr. Cobb: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this rate of wastage compares very favourably with that obtaining today in similar industries?
    Mr. Gallacher: Cannot the Government agree with this campaign of the Tories for increased wages and increase them all round at the Tories' expense?

    Christmas Work, Brighton
    Mr. Marloweasked the Postmaster-General why T. Jennings, an ex-Service man, of 62, Wordsworth Street, Hove, has been informed by letter, Reference DF 6074, that he cannot have casual employment over Christmas at the Brighton Post Office, though at a previous interview he had been told that work would be available for him as from 13th December; why an explanation was refused on his subsequent calling at the post office; and how many foreigners have been offered casual employment at Christmas by the Brighton Post Office.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am assured that Mr. Jennings was not informed that work would be available for him as from 13th December. He was told, in common with other applicants, that, if selected, he would be required about 13th December. When he subsequently called at the Brighton Post Office, he was informed that it had not been possible to find suitable employment for him. No aliens are being employed at the Brighton Post Office during the Christmas season.

    Telephone Service, Ellon
    Mr. Spenceasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the present telephone facilities at Ellon, Aberdeenshire; and when additional equipment will be allocated to this exchange.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I regret that the hon. Member has been misinformed. Additional exchange equipment has recently been provided at Ellon and where there is external plant waiting applicants will be given service as soon as labour is available.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister say how soon the waiting list for telephones in Ellon will be reduced, and is he aware that some people have been waiting for three years for an installation?
    Mr. Paling: Some of them have waited a long time, but the exchange equipment is now installed. What we are waiting for is the external equipment, like cables and overhead wires. I hope these people will have telephones shortly.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Postmaster-General say whether the trunk-call service to Aberdeen will be improved, because it is only 20 miles away and it sometimes takes half an hour to get a call through?
    Mr. Paling: That is another Question, and one which I should like to see on the Paper.
    Mr. MacLeod: Can the Minister say whether more equipment will be given to isolated places in the Highlands, where the people are a great distance from any telephone?
    Mr. Paling: Most hon. Members are aware that at the present time we are doing all we possibly can, particularly in remote places and for farmers.

    Temporary Postmen (Coloured Applicants)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that two British subjects of African descent, applying for employment as temporary postmen, were officially informed on Monday, 6th December, that such employment was available to white applicants only; and if he will give an assurance that his Department imposes no racial or colour discrimination in respect of such employment.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: British subjects of colour are eligible to be considered for employment as temporary postmen, and are being so employed. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the case in mind, I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. Driberg: While I do not wish to bother my right hon. Friend about the particular case since I am asking the Minister of Labour about it tomorrow, can we then have the general assurance requested in the latter part of my Question?
    Mr. Paling: My answer indicates that.

    Savings Bank (Proposed Transfer)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that his proposal for moving the Post Office Savings Bank to Sheffield can be achieved without inflicting serious hardship on a large proportion of the staff.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Yes, Sir; though I recognise that there may be differing opinions as to what constitutes serious hardship. The move would be subject to the safeguards provided in the agreement between the official and staff sides of the Civil Service Whitley Council.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps in particular will be taken to assist those members of the staff who at present have homes in the London area?
    Mr. Paling: Naturally when one is going to make transfers or removals, housing accommodation is one of the prime considerations.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not a fact that an immediate transfer on the lines
    1190
    suggested in the Question is not a possibility?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think that it is likely to happen just yet anyway.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Air Training Corps
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consider the granting of scholarships or other appropriate finacial aid to selected cadets of the Air Training Corps to enable them to qualify for a private pilots licence thereby assisting in the maintenance of flying clubs in the same way that has been carried out so successfully in Canada.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): The question of aid to flying clubs is being examined in the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. As regards air experience for the A.T.C., we are making great improvements in the gliding organisation and already every first-class cadet over 16 has the chance of learning to glide.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Why cannot cadets be given the opportunity to qualify for a pilot's licence in the same way as the opportunity is given to them in Canada, where the scheme has been most successful?
    Mr. de Freitas: The Canadian scheme and others are being examined.
    Mr. Eden: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster giving instruction in how to glide?
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that lack of accommodation is seriously interfering with recruitment and training for the Air Training Corps; and, as this affects the recruitment for the R.A.F., what steps he is taking to improve conditions.
    Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir. In nearly all cases the local committees have succeeded in housing their units satisfactorily, and the strength of the corps and the proportion of proficient cadets continue to rise. Where there are accommodation difficulties, my Department does all it can to help the local committees.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that there is very great dissatisfaction about the inadequate accommodation in various parts of the country? Will he consult the people in his own Department who advise him on these matters? If he does he might get a great deal more information.
    Mr. de Freitas: I have consulted them. That is why I have stated that in nearly all cases the local committees have housed their units satisfactorily. If the hon. Member has information of units whose accommodation is unsatisfactory I hope that he will bring the information to my attention.

    Married Quarters
    Mr. George Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of married quarters available in the United Kingdom for officers and other ranks of the R.A.F., respectively; the number of such married quarters at present unoccupied awaiting repair; the number of married quarters at present under construction; and the number of officers and men whose names are at present on a waiting list for married quarters.
    Mr. de Freitas: There are 1,240 married quarters for officers and 6,700 for airmen. Altogether about 25 are unoccupied and awaiting repair. Four hundred and thirty married quarters for officers and 2,100 for airmen are under construction. Each station has its own waiting list, but there is no central list so I cannot give the figures asked for. However I will have them compiled and will send them to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Ward: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that the provision of adequate married quarters has a very important bearing on recruiting for, and on morale in, the R.A.F.? Will he further agree that if he wants to get the right type of man into the Air Force and keep him happy there, he must tackle this problem much more energetically?
    Mr. de Freitas: I quite agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The problem is being tackled and 2,500 quarters are now being built.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air (1)what system is employed and how long it takes
    1192
    his Department to obtain vacant possession of married quarters now being occupied by families of men still in the R.A.F. but whose entitlement to married quarters has ceased;
    (2) what system is employed and how long it takes his Department to obtain vacant possession of married quarters now occupied by families of ex-Service officers and airmen whose entitlement to married quarters has ceased, due to their demobilisation from the Service.
    Mr. de Freitas: When an occupant ceases for any reason to be entitled to occupy a married quarter he is given 61 days' notice. If the quarter is not given up at the end of this period the facts are reported to my Department so that proceedings may be taken through the courts.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Am I to understand that officers who are serving are given 61 days' notice, in the same way as an officer who has been demobilised.
    Mr. de Freitas: That was my answer, but I ought to add that each case is considered on its merits and that we have never had any reason to reject a serving officer at all.
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Is the Minister aware that there are some who have left the Service to take up civil employment and whose families are still occupying Service quarters, thereby depriving other Service families of accommodation?
    Mr. de Freitas: Each case is gone into very carefully and 60 people altogether have been evicted.

    Air Sea Rescue Units
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Air if a decision has yet been reached on the question of establishing Air Sea Rescue Units of the Auxiliary Air Force; and where they are to be established.
    Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir, but a decision will be taken shortly.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that if he likes to send a telegram to the Shetlands it will produce results, because they are ready to form a unit tomorrow?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am quite certain of that, and many coastal counties in the United Kingdom are willing to form these units. too.

    "R.A.F. Review" (Article)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that in the October issue of the "R.A.F. Review," a publication prepared in his Department, it is stated that the Russian authorities during the war were paying British airmen of No. 151 Hurricane Wing of the R.A.F. 12,000 roubles for every German aircraft they destroyed; how many such aircraft were destroyed; how much money was paid over; who were the recipients; and who is the author of the article referred to.
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir. As was publicly stated at the time, a sum of 15,000 roubles—about £300—was paid over by the Russian authorities, following their practice for their own forces, and was transferred to the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund. The sum actually paid in respect of each aircraft destroyed was 1,000 roubles and not 12,000 as stated in the article. Fifteen German aircraft were destroyed. The article was written by a member of the editorial staff.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Under-Secretary say if the aircraft were destroyed by British pilots?
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir, they were.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say why this exaggeration was permitted in this journal?
    Mr. de Freitas: It was a misprint, as I said.
    Mr. Stokes: It happens in the Tory papers, too.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Air why Mr. A. E. Lintern, 9–81, Clifton Road, Aston, Birmingham 6, was rejected for service in the R.A.F. by the medical officer at No. 3 C.R.S.S. R.A.F. Station, Cardington, on 27th October, on the grounds that his condition showed him to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, in view of the fact that a few days later the Tuberculosis Clinic, Great Charles Street, Birmingham, found him to be free from any sign of tuberculosis or from the likelihood of developing such a complaint; and what compensation his Department proposes to offer to Mr. Lintern for the shock caused to him by this inaccurate diagnosis.
    Mr. de Freitas: Mr. Lintern's medical examination showed him to be unfit for service because he had a weak chest. No final diagnosis was made or could have been made without further clinical tests, but since the examination showed that he might be suffering from tuberculosis he was advised to see his own doctor, who was given the results of the examination by letter. This is in accordance with normal medical practice and in these circumstances there is no case for payment of compensation.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand a medical certificate signed by the medical officer who examined Mr. Lintern and it clearly states that he suffered from active tuberculosis? In view of that will my hon. Friend take steps to see that these inaccurate diagnoses are not made on people who offer themselves for voluntary service in the R.A.F.; and in view of the grave shock caused in this case will he see that some compensation is paid?
    Mr. de Freitas: Mr. Lintern was told that he might be suffering from tuberculosis and he should see his own doctor. The communication was from one doctor to another and it went into the prima facie findings of the R.A.F. doctor.
    Dr. Segal: Can my hon. Friend explain what is the correct medical expression for this term "weak chest"?
    Mr. de Freitas: I could not say exactly. I used the expression "weak chest" because I am a layman talking to laymen, but the doctor, writing to another doctor, used the correct medical term.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that the medical department of the R.A.F. rendered very valuable service to Mr. Lintern?
    Mr. de Freitas: It might have rendered him a very important service but it was found, in fact, that he was not so suffering from tuberculosis.

    Petrol Allowances
    Mr. Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers or officials in the Air Ministry receive petrol coupons for more than 200 gallons per annum in respect of official duties.
    Mr. de Freitas: Eighty-five.
    Mr. Ward: Would not the Minister agree that any suspicion or rumour amongst the general public that petrol allowance on too lavish a scale, at the expense of the ordinary motorist, is going on at the Air Ministry, will reflect adversely upon the Royal Air Force as a whole. Will he consider this matter very carefully, especially as I have heard that petrol is being dished out on too lavish a scale?
    Mr. de Freitas: The figure I have given certainly shows that that is not so, since last year the figure was 120. There has been a reduction to 85.

    Air Survey Work
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Air whether in view of the deficiencies in the strength of the R.A.F., he will consider following the practice of the Canadian and United States Governments by handing over part of the air survey work to civil air survey companies and thus releasing officers and men of the R.A.F. for warlike purposes.
    Mr. de Freitas: The four photographic reconnaissance squadrons of the Royal Air Force employed on air survey work for the civil departments would be required in war for photographic intelligence and survey duties and the work they are doing provides them with valuable peace-time training.
    Mr. Keeling: While there is very great pressure on the Royal Air Force owing to the requirements of the Berlin air lift, may I ask whether the Air Ministry will not again consider whether they could not call in aid the civil air survey companies for colonial service, so as to relieve the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. de Freitas: A balanced air force requires a certain proportion of photographic squadrons. It would certainly not strengthen the Royal Air Force to turn those squadrons into fighting or transport squadrons. On the second point, the civil Departments are perfectly free to employ private firms if they wish to, but find the R.A.F. is cheaper, more convenient and more efficient.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Do the Air Force photographic squadrons compete with the civil survey companies for these jobs?
    Mr. de Freitas: I do not know about competition. We are asked by certain civil Departments to undertake this work, and we do so.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Flying and Gliding Clubs
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if, in order to implement his undertaking to do what he can for flying clubs, he will institute a scheme similar to that operated in Canada whereby financial aid is given to enable promising cadets of the Air Training Corps to receive flying instruction to enable them to qualify for a private pilot's licence.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is yet in a position to announce measures of assistance towards British gliding clubs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The question of financial assistance to flying and gliding clubs and other private flying agencies is to be reviewed by an inter-departmental working party which has been set up by agreement with the Ministers of the Service Departments and the Minister of Supply.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Minister draw the attention of the working party to the very successful action that has been taken in Canada to help flying clubs, with a view to getting as much information as possible to see what can be done about flying clubs in this country?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. In addition, our attention has been called to the matter by the Air League of the British Empire.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister ask the working party to make a report before the next gliding season starts in the Spring?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is our intention. but I would not like to give a promise that it will be realised.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Minister realise that there was a committee dealing with this subject nearly

    1197
    two years ago? Will not the Government make up their minds what they intend to do about it. before the clubs go broke?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, but it is a question of the financial implications. On the last occasion we were not able to convince the Treasury. On this occasion I hope that we shall be able to do so.
    Captain Crookshank: Will the Minister say what the difference is between an inter-departmental working party and the more usual form of investigation by an inter-departmental committee?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is a technical matter which it would take too long to explain.

    Charter Operators (Questionnaire)
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the purpose of the questionnaire R.46656/47/A.S.(G)3 dated 20th October, 1948, which was sent to air charter operators by his Department.
    Mr. Lindgren: For the purpose set out in Section 24 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, a copy of which Section was enclosed with the letter.
    Mr. Ward: Would the Minister agree that the completion of this form involves a tremendous amount of work and would need the full-time services of a qualified accountant, if it is to be properly done? Might I be allowed to give one example? It is as follows:
    "How did the consignors know that space was available? Was the first approach made by the consignors to your Company, or by your Company to the consignors? How was that approach made? Whom did the consignors pay for the carriage of the freight?"
    Is that not just another example of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy?
    Mr. Lindgren: Not if the people answering the questions have nothing to hide.

    Foreign Exchange
    Mr. Errollasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement as to the directions he has issued to the three airways corporations to purchase their stores and requirements as far as possible in the sterling area.
    Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend has not considered it necessary to issue formal directions to the three airways corporations because he is satisfied that they are fully alive to the need for economy in the use of foreign exchange. and especially of hard currencies.
    Mr. Erroll: Would the Parliamentary Secretary ask his noble Friend to look into this matter further, as there is a good deal of evidence accumulating to show that the corporations are not taking the care which they ought to take, particularly in regard to trading in dollar area countries?
    Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend takes a very keen interest personally in this matter. In addition, the corporations are subject to the same stringent regulation and control as any other commercial or trading undertaking. If the hon. Member has any information whatever to the contrary and he will bring it to us, it will receive the most definite inquiry.
    Mr. Cooper: How does the Minister reconcile the answer he has just given with the fact that it has taken some of us more than two years to persuade his Department to persuade the corporations to change their bases from Canada to this country on the ground that their dollar expenditure has been excessive?
    Mr. Lindgren: British ways are sometimes slow but they are very effective in the end.
    Mr. Eden: Is the Minister creating an inter-departmental working party to look into this matter?
    Mr. Lindgren: Not on this occasion.

    Engine Testing, Northolt (Noise)
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware of the disturbance caused to the residents of South Harrow by the testing of aircraft engines at Northolt Aerodrome at night; and if he will take steps to see that this nuisance is abated.
    Mr. Lindgren: I regret that I have nothing to add to the very full replies that I have given in my recent letters to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Bower: Is the Minister aware that the noise is so bad that the people of this thickly populated area are unable to get proper sleep? Will he look into the possibility of carrying out engine testing at another aerodrome some little distance away?
    Mr. Lindgren: This House requires the corporations to operate economically. This involves the necessity for aeroplanes to operate from their own bases. Unfortunately, aircraft are noisy instruments of transport. We are doing everything possible to mitigate the noise, but I would be misleading the House and people in the vicinity of the airport if I led them to believe that they were not likely to get considerable disturbance from both the flying and the testing of aircraft.

    Contingent Claims
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smilesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation by what date the contingent claims between the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Ministry of Supply and the B.E.A., referred to in paragraph 25 of the B.E.A. report for the year ended 31st March, 1948, will be settled.
    Mr. Lindgren: The negotiations regarding the Viking contingent claims have proved protracted, but I expect that they will be settled in the near future and that the necessary accounting adjustments will be made in the books of B.E.A.C. during the current financial year.

    B.E.A.C. (Losses)
    Sir W. Smilesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the approximate amount of time and money lost by B.E.A.C. for the year ended 31st March, 1948, due to the uncommercial procedure, followed on the Government's instructions, and referred to in the report of B.E.A.C., page 20, paragraph 21.
    Mr. Lindgren: It is not possible to assign time or money values to any additional administrative effort involved in the procedure referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Sir W. Smiles: Will this procedure come to an end before the next report is issued on 31st March, 1949?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. The House will remember that a special committee of businessmen were appointed by the Prime Minister. Effect will be given to their findings almost immediately.

    Committees (Reports)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the respective reports of the Helmore Committee on the Certification of Aircraft and of the Wilcock Committee on Training of Civil Aviation Aircrew Personnel have not been published; and whether it is proposed to published them.
    Mr. Lindgren: These reports are now under examination in the Government Departments concerned. Publication will take place when a statement of Government policy can be made.
    Mr. Beswick: What is the purpose of not publishing these reports until the final decision is made?
    Mr. Lindgren: It might complicate the issue if we published them beforehand.
    Mr. Beswick: If these reports are only a basis for discussion, would it not be better if industry generally and the trade Press could have the opportunity of discussing them before the final decision is made?
    Mr. Lindgren: I should have thought that it was the function of the Committee to get the views of the trade and industry generally before making their report to the Minister.

  GERMANY

    Fat (Deliveries)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of the total quantity of fat, amounting to 217,000 tons, agreed to be delivered into the Anglo-U.S. zone of Germany for the twelve months ending 30th June, 1949, had been so delivered by 31st October, 1948; and what quantity will deliveries amount to for the months of November and December, 1948, and January, 1949.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The proportion of fats delivered by 31st October, 1948, was 22.5 per cent. The quantities

    1201
    delivered or expected to be delivered in November, December and January are 26,700 tons, 10,000 tons and 10,000 tons respectively.
    Mr. Stokes: My right hon. Friend really has puzzled me. Does his answer mean that in the first four months, up to the end of October, the promised amount, namely, 70,000 tons, has been delivered, and that 20,000 tons a month for the next three months will be delivered, or has been delivered in the case of November; because percentages are of no use one knows what x is?
    Mr. Bevin: On the advice of my work-party it was 22.5 per cent. of the total that was expected to be delivered.
    Mr. Stokes: I cannot put the Question down again before Christmas, but will my right hon. Friend explain to his working party that what they are really trying to do is to deceive the House of Commons?

    Extradition Regulations
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on whose instructions the officers in charge of the extradition tribunal in Hamburg warned lawyers against appealing to Members of Parliament in order to get the extradition regulations altered and cancelled.
    Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the conclusions of the tribunal the presiding genius said that if any such attempt were repeated, he would take the strictest measures against any person who thereby tried to influence the work of the tribunal; and, surely, that is quite contrary to our ideas of the freedom which should be allowed even to a conquered people?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot pronounce these solemn judgments of which my hon. Friend is so capable until I have had the results of the inquiries.

    Exchange Control (Organisation)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to prevent German industrialists invoicing exports
    1202
    for less than their worth and so organising a dollar leakage from the pool of foreign money created to pay for imports.
    Mr. Bevin: An attempt is now being made to reorganise the Customs and Frontier Control Services of the three Western zones as a whole. This re-organisation should make for a much more efficient and sound service than at present exists and should greatly reduce the opportunities for exchange control evasion.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon Friend confirm or deny that the irregularities in this matter cover as much as 60 million dollars, because, if that is so, it is a really serious thing?
    Mr. Bevin: I admit it is very serious. It is a very serious case and very difficult to handle. We are reorganising the whole business. I have no knowledge of the exact amount.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not correct that in fact the export prices of all these materials are controlled by J.E.I.A., a joint agency representing the bizone, and that the Germans have little to do with it as far as export prices are concerned?
    Mr. Bevin: That is so.

    YUGOSLAVIA (ARRESTED BRITISH SUBJECT)
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has protested against the kidnapping of Mr. Whalley, a British civilian, who was carried across the Yugoslav frontier and imprisoned for six weeks, during 40 days of which he was kept in solitary confinement in a small cell suffering from starvation and cold, while no charge whatever was brought against him.
    Mr. Bevin: In view of a report which I have just received from the Allied Military Government authorities in Trieste on this subject, I have asked His Majesty's Ambassador in Belgrade to address a note of protest to the Yugoslav Government about the duration of Mr. Whalley's captivity without any charge being brought, and also about the fact that no British representative was informed at the time of his arrest nor was Mr. Whalley allowed to communicate with anyone. The protest is being made

    1203
    on the grounds that the action of the Yugoslav authorities was contrary to the usual procedure in such cases.
    Professor Savory: Has the right hon. Gentleman also brought to the attention of the Government that this unfortunate man was starved and, further, that he says he was almost crazy, being shut up in Ljubljana prison, absolutely innocent, without any charge being brought against him?
    Mr. Gallacher: The same thing in Ulster.
    Mr. Bevin: I have not protested against his arrest. I want to make that clear to the House. My information is that he ignored warnings and entered without a permit. What I protested against was his detention, their failure to notify us and their failure to treat him properly.
    Captain John Crowder: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that he expects foreign Governments to carry out the requests which are set out over his own signature on all British passports?
    Mr. Bevin: I expect it. I expect lots of things but I do not always get them.
    Mr. Warbey: Do the reports available to my right hon. Friend bear out the allegations contained in the Question regarding
    "solitary confinement in a small cell suffering from starvation and cold"?
    Mr. Bevin: I have not the report before me. I would like notice of that question.
    Professor Savory: It is his own statement; that is what he said.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the British subject in question has actually been detained in these circumstances for a period of six weeks without any protest having been made?
    Mr. Bevin: We protested as soon as we got the facts.

    PALESTINE (ARRESTED BRITISH SUBJECT)
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Sylvester, a British subject, was arrested in Jerusalem, imprisoned in a cellar for 133 days, in com-
    1204
    plete darkness and without exercise, and was daily, for 10 days, tortured by the Jews, being kicked as he lay on the ground, and hit over the head with a rubber truncheon; and whether His Majesty's Government have demanded compensation on his behalf.
    Mr. Bevin: The Foreign Office have received from Mr. Sylvester himself a detailed statement as to the treatment meted out to him in the various places of his imprisonment. This states that he was kicked and beaten by the Irgun and otherwise illtreated during the first ten days of his confinement. Thereafter the regular Jewish authorities obtained custody of him and his four companions, and he states that he was well-treated. The whole question of compensation for Mr. Sylvester and the four other British subjects arrested with him is now receiving careful consideration by His Majesty's Government.
    Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was seized in a building belonging to the United Nations and that he himself has stated that the only reason for his arrest was that the Jewish authorities wanted to get rid of the Jerusalem Electrical Corporation?
    Mr. Paget: Does not the Foreign Secretary feel that it is a fortunate change when we find a political trial fairly conducted and ending in an acquittal?
    Mr. Bevin: I think that after the Jewish authorities got hold of the case there was better treatment and a fair trial, but that is not in the Question. What I am asked about is what happened beforehand.
    Professor Savory: Exactly.
    Mr. Warbey: Do the reports available to my right hon. Friend bear out the allegations contained in the Question that this man was
    "imprisoned in a cellar for 133 days, in complete darkness and without exercise"?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot go into everything Mr. Sylvester has told us. I am studying the matter very carefully.

    ROUMANIA (OIL COMPANY, BRITISH STAFF)
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what ground the Royal Dutch-Shell group was

    1205
    compelled to withdraw all its British staff from Roumania; and whether he has made a protest under Article 3 of the Treaty.
    Mr. Bevin: The Royal Dutch-Shell group, following upon Roumanian Government intervention prejudicial to their interests as the majority shareholders in the Astra Romana Company, declared, on 6th March last, that the company was in a state of "forcible dissolution." As a consequence, the British staff of the company were at once withdrawn from Roumania. No protest was made under Article 3 of the Peace Treaty with Roumania, the terms of which do not apply to this particular case.
    Professor Savory: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place that the evidence is such as to suggest that this is a deliberate policy of humiliation and indignity?
    Mr. Bevin: I quite agree with that, but the Question put to me is whether I have made a protest under Article 3, and this does not apply.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Foreign Secretary say what protest has been made against the forcible expropriation of this valuable British asset?
    Mr. Bevin: It does not apply under the Article. Therefore, it is not valid.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether any protest has been made under any treaty?
    Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Does my right hon. Friend regard any process of nationalisation in a foreign country as a process of humiliation and indignity?
    Mr. Bevin: I think that when we are dealing with each other's interests there is a standard of decency that ought to be applied. The general understanding in the Peace Treaty was that compensation should be paid and that the company should be treated decently and properly, just as when, the other day, Russian Oil Products—R.O.P.—wanted to dispose of their business in England they were paid
    1206
    and treated properly. I ask the same treatment for any British interests elsewhere.

  ARMED FORCES

    Women's Services (Pay and Allowances)
    Mr. Cobbasked the Minister of Defence whether he is yet in a position to make a statement upon pay and allowances of the Women's Services.
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Defence whether he is yet in a position to make a statement upon pay and allowances in the Women's Services.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): With permission, I will ask my hon. Friends to await the statement I propose to make at the end of Questions.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Alexander: The Government have now reviewed the pay codes of the Women's Royal Naval Service, the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
    During the war these Women's Services were paid at approximately two-thirds of men's rates—the ratio originally applied when the A.T.S. was first established on a non-regular basis in 1938. When the post-war codes of pay and allowances for officers and men of the Forces were introduced in July, 1946, the Women's Services remained on their existing pay code, but officers were given an increase of 1s. a day and other ranks an increase of 8d. a day, as a provisional arrangement pending consideration of the future organisation and structure of these Services.
    They are now to form a permanent part of the Armed Forces of the Crown, and the A.T.S. and W.A.A.F. will be incorporated in the Army and R.A.F. respectively under the Army and Air Force (Women's Services) Act which passed through the House earlier this year.
    The Government have decided, therefore, that the pay of the Women's Services should again be fixed as a proportion of that of men in the Forces and that this proportion should be raised from the wartime level of about two-thirds to about three-quarters. This ratio will confer increases, in many cases substantial

    1207
    increases, over present rates of pay, the cost of which on present strengths will be approximately £1 million a year. Arrangements will be made on similar lines to those adopted for the men's Forces to ensure the retention of existing rates of pay in any case where by reason for example of War Service Increments these exceed the new rates.
    Officers and other ranks of the Women's Services are, of course, entitled, in addition to basic pay, to free accommodation and rations, or allowances in lieu. These allowances will continue to be at the same rates as those for men.
    Following the decision to establish the Women's Services on a permanent basis, the Government have also decided to establish scales of retired pay, Service pensions and long service gratuities. Those for the men's Forces were fixed on the basis that men in the Forces are often retired in middle life and will generally have family commitments. These considerations do not apply to women to the same degree, and retired pay, pensions and gratuities for the Women's Services have accordingly been fixed at about two-thirds of those of men of corresponding rank and length of service.
    I am arranging for a White Paper to be issued as soon as possible giving full details of the new rates which will be effective from 24th November, 1948. In the meantime I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a comparative statement showing typical basic rates of pay under the old and new scales.
    Mr. Cobb: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this extra cost of £1 million a year is gross, and that he ought to set off against this the saving which is effected by appointing a large number of women in the Services to do men's jobs, which is occasioning a considerable saving? While thanking my right hon. Friend for the moderately satisfactory increase of about 13 per cent., I wish to ask him if he will see that the Women's Services are posted and handled in such a way that their expenses are kept down to a minimum?
    Mr. Alexander: I am not necessarily able to accept, in the case of all appointments of women, the principle outlined by my hon. Friend. It may be that in some cases some saving could be shown but in most cases I would not admit
    1208
    the principle. I will look into the second point which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
    Mr. Eden: I quite understand the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman has proceeded, but is he quite sure that it will work out satisfactorily and that he will not find a position in which the junior officer will get the least percentage increase and the senior officer the largest percentage increase?
    Mr. Alexander: I am quite certain from all the consultations with the Services themselves that they would wish the different grades in the Women's Services to have the same ratio of grades and intervals between grades as exist in the men's Forces. It is giving them a permanent Regular status, with every single grade having a rate of pay at a fixed ratio to that of the men.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister of Defence say whether the Women's Services are satisfied with these increases?
    Mr. Alexander: I should think that they will be eminently satisfied.
    Sir Ian Fraser: Will retired pay and long service pensions be raised consequentially and pro rata?
    Mr. Alexander: The cases of pensions and gratuities have hardly applied previously in the case of the women's Services except in cases of gratuities which may arise in special re-engagements of short-service women. In effect, therefore, these are new rates but they are on a fixed principle of two-thirds of what is being paid to the men.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister of Defence aware that these new conditions make the women's Services more attractive than the nursing profession in Scotland? Is he aware that we have insufficient nurses in Scotland to nurse tuberculous victims of the last war, and will he cease recruiting women for the Armed Forces until we meet the need in respect of tuberculosis patients?
    Mr. Alexander: I cannot possibly accept that principle. I am quite sure that the position of the women in the nursing services will be effectively dealt with elsewhere. I cannot give up the necessity of recruiting all the women necessary until we reach our target.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the professional branches in the women's Services will not be affected by anything which he has said today? They now have the same rates as men.
    Mr. Alexander: I take it that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to doctors and dentists. They will be treated exactly

    NEW RATES OF PAY FOR THE WOMEN'S SERVICES

    I.—OFFICERS' PAY

    The rates shown in this Table are typical annual cash rates of basic pay for women officers in the A.T.S. who also receive food and accommodation in kind. They are reasonably typical of the W.A.A.F. but W.R.N.S. rates, because of earlier promotion under the Naval system, will in certain ranks be somewhat lower than the rates, rank for rank, of A.T.S. and W.A.A.F. officers. W.R.N.S. officers' rates of pay will be about three-quarters of the rates of pay of Naval officers of corresponding rank

    Present Rates

    New Rates

    Basic Rates

    Basic Rates

    Daily

    Annual

    Daily

    Annual

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    2nd Subaltern

    …

    8

    4

    152

    2nd Subaltern

    …

    9

    9

    177

    Subaltern

    …

    9

    8

    176

    Subaltern

    …

    11

    3

    205

    Junior Commander

    …

    12

    0

    219

    Junior Commander

    …

    17

    3

    314

    Senior Commander

    …

    20

    0

    365

    Senior Commander

    …

    26

    3

    479

    Chief Commander

    …

    29

    8

    541

    Chief Commander

    …

    35

    6

    647

    Controller

    …

    34

    3

    625

    Controller

    …

    48

    9

    889

    Senior Controller

    …

    39

    10

    726

    Senior Controller

    …

    57

    9

    1,053

    NOTE: In addition to the rates shown there will be incremental pay on the same basis as for male officers in certain ranks.

    Jet Fighters (Export)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Defence whether he will give an assurance that jet propelled fighter aircraft will not be supplied to any other
    as they are now treated. I believe they are paid equal rates.
    Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people serving in the Forces are grateful for the substantial increases of pay given by the Labour Government, which are much greater than ever given by any Tory Government?
    Following is the statement:
    countries until sufficient numbers of such aircraft, both first line and reserve, are available for the defence of this country in any foreseeable contingency.
    Mr. Alexander: While the bulk of our production of jet fighters is being used to equip our own Air Forces and those of our Allies under the Brussels Treaty, His Majesty's Government do not regard it as desirable, in existing circumstances, to prohibit other exports entirely.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest type of jet turbine engines are being manufactured in the Hispano factory in France, and is he satisfied that proper security measures are being taken to ensure that our secrets are not given away?
    Mr. Alexander: We are doing our very best to have the highest security arrangements possible.

    Demobilisation (Civilian Clothing)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Defence whether men called up in 1947 for a fixed term of two years or less who, because of deferment serve for more than two years, will be entitled to an issue of clothing on demobilisation instead of clothing coupons.
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend think it right to compensate these people for the extra three months' service they are giving by providing them with the same facilities as people who are serving only two years?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. This condition was announced a considerable time ago for all men who enlisted under the National Service Act after 1st January, 1947, and it is not possible on the grounds of expense and the setting up of new administration to go back on that principle and apply to these people the same conditions as were given to those who served long periods during the war and were given special benefits.

  MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) BILL
    FOOD SUPPLIES

      Slaughterhouse, Newport
      Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory position and unsuitability of the present slaughterhouse in Newport; whether it is his intention to erect a new one; and if he will consider occupying a site beyond normal public habitations such as at the docks.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I know that the local authority's slaughterhouse at Newport, Monmouthshire, is old and is situated in a built-up area. The premises are, however, adequate for their purpose and are not so unsatisfactory as to warrant urgent rebuilding on another site.
      Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that, being in the centre of the town, the stench causes great annoyance and inconvenience to all surrounding houses? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to get another building at the earliest possible moment?
      Dr. Summerskill: We recognise that many of these slaughterhouses need new buildings but my hon. Friend knows, because a permit was given for another building, that building material is so limited that we cannot sanction new buildings unless they prove to be necessary.

      Sugar Ration, Andover Co-operative Society
      Mr. Donnerasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to complaints that the Andover Co-operative Society has failed to honour, on several occasions, the sugar ration of certain customers to which they are entitled; that the management, while admitting that supplies have been received, have refused any explanation of their failure to supply these customers; that the local food office has been informed, but has declined to interfere; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter.
      Dr. Summerskill: There was a temporary shortage of sugar supplies at the Andover Co-operative Society in November due to more members exercising the option to take sugar instead of preserves. The food office, when advised, made all necessary arrangements for the supply of sugar and the five members who complained were told to re-apply for their ration. There has been no further complaint and so far as I am aware all the members' rations have been supplied.
      Mr. Donner: Is the hon. Lady aware that the manager himself informed the customers that he had received the sugar supplies and, in all the circumstances.

      1213
      will she recommend these customers to transfer their custom to private enterprise?

      Feedingstuffs (Poultry)
      Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Food how much rationed food did a hen receive in 1946. 1947 and during the present year.
      Dr. Summerskill: It is impossible to give figures for hens alone, but the total Winter rations of feedingstuffs for pigs and poultry in Great Britain have increased as follow, taking the winter 1946–47 as an index basis: 1946–47—100; 1947–48—237.4; 1948–49—321.5. The last figure is a provisional estimate.
      Sir I. Fraser: Is the hon. Lady aware that on 17th November, her master, the Minister, said that hens were receiving three times as much rations as last year? How was he able to distinguish between hens and others on that occasion, if she cannot do so now?
      Dr. Summerskill: The amount of poultry food and pig food distributed last Spring was three times the amount distributed in the previous Spring and I think my right hon. Friend, not my master, was thinking of that.
      Mr. Eden: Can the hon. Lady say how it is that the hens do not seem to be more grateful?
      Dr. Summerskill: They are. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, the hens are very active and energetic.
      Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister transfer this system of feeding hens by results to other sections of the population?
      Mr. Gallacher: Does the hon. Lady find any subversive activities on the part of red hens?

      Jam (Fruit Content)
      Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food how much jam made from pulp with little fruit content is still on sale in shops; and whether he will ensure that it is so labelled.
      Dr. Summerskill: Whether a jam is made from fresh fruit or from fruit pulp, the minimum fruit content is the same. For a table of the minimum fruit content of jams I would refer my hon. Friend
      1214
      to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on 14th June, 1948. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a Press Announcement issued on 17th November, which states that the Food Standards Committee is at present considering the standards for preserves.

      Marmalade
      Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the shortage in some districts of marmalade, he will arrange for its more equitable distribution, or return it to the ration.
      Dr. Summerskill: I have had no reports of local shortages of marmalade but, if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any case he has in mind. I will be glad to look into it.

      De-rationed Sweets
      Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Minister of Food whether he will now make a statement about future arrangements for the supply of boiled sweets and whether he will remove the apprehensions of many small retailers that their supplies will be cut down substantially in order to permit increased allocations to canteens and large stores.
      Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on Monday, 13th December, to the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Bowden), and Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). We shall take all possible steps, in consultation with the trade, to ensure an equitable distribution of the de-rationed sweets.
      Mr. Sharp: Is my hon. Friend aware that at least one retailer in my constituency has been advised by his suppliers that in future for every 10 bottles of boiled sweets, he will only receive one bottle? Can she give an assurance that no such arrangement will be approved by the Department?
      Dr. Summerskill: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have no knowledge of any such arrangement, because we are still discussing the matter with the trade.
      Mr. Peter Freeman: Is there any preferential treatment for children?
      Dr. Summerskill: Most of the decontrolled brands will be under 2s. a pound, so the children will probably have them.

      SOAP SUPPLIES, SOUTHWELL
      Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that washing soap and soapflakes are unprocurable in Southwell, Notts and what steps he is taking to make an adequate supply available.
      Dr. Summerskill: The overall supply of soap in Southwell is sufficient to meet the ration of those living in the area. It is not possible to guarantee that demands for particular types and varieties can always be met but I understand that both washing soap and soapflakes are now available.
      Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that when this Question was put down, many housewives in Southwell had three weeks' soap coupons, which they were unable to exchange for soap?
      Dr. Summerskill: I wish the hon. Member had told me before. He will be surprised to hear that not one complaint was received at the Food Office.

      BRITISH CONSULATE, BUFFALO (CLOSING)
      Lord John Hopeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the extent of dollar saving expected to result from the closing down of the British consulate in Buffalo.
      Mr. Bevin: The expected saving is 13,000 dollars per annum.
      Lord John Hope: May I ask the Secretary of State if he is aware that in the opinion of the United States authorities in Buffalo the shortage of dollar exchange will be shortened still further by His Majesty's Government's decision to close this important consulate; and in view of the exceptional consternation caused in Buffalo over the decision, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again and, if possible, reverse the decision, as it is most important?
      Mr. Bevin: Not in relation to Buffalo, but I am looking into the whole question of the consular organisation itself and am seeking to improve it generally.

    BILLS PRESENTED
      MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) BILL
      Mr. Bevin"to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required by the Minister of Food to fulfil contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of this Act, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current when the contracts or arrangements were made," presented by Mr. Strachey; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. P. Noel-Baker, Mr. Thomas Williams and Mr. Wilson; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
      SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, &c. BILL
      Mr. Bevin"to repeal the enactments requiring certain legal practitioners in Great Britain to take out stamped practising certificates, and to make consequential provision as to their right to practice and other matters," presented by the Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall and the Lord Advocate; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put:
"That the Proceedings in Committee on Legal Aid and Advice [Money] and on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Prize Bill and the Wages Councils Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. W. Whiteley.]
The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 92.

Division No. 38.]

AYES

[3.38 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Ayles, W. H.

Benson, G.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Ayston Gould Mrs. B

Berry, H.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Bacon, Miss A.

Beswick, F.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Balfour, A.

Binns, J.

Attewell, H. C.

Barton, C.

Blackburn, A. R.

Austin, H. Lewis

Battley, J. R

Blenkinsop, A.

Awbery, S. S.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Blyton, W. R.

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Ranger, J.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Rankin, J.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Bramall, E. A.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Richards, R.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Byers, Frank

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Carmichael, James

Janner, B.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Chamberlain, R. A

Jenkins, R. H.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Champion, A. J.

Johnston, Douglas

Royle, C

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Scollan, T.

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Scott-Elliott, W

Cobb, F. A.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Segal, Dr. S.

Cocks, F. S.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Sharp, Granville

Coldrick, W.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helans)

Collick, P.

Keenan, W.

Shurmer, P.

Collindridge, F.

Kendall, W. D

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Collins, V. J.

Kenyon, C.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Colman, Miss G. M.

Kinley, J.

Skeffington, A. M.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Kirby, B. V.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Crawley, A

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

Skinnard, F. W.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lang, G.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Daines, P.

Lavers, S.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

Snow, J. W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Solley, L. J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Lindgren, G. S.

Stokes, R. R,

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lipson, D. L.

Stross, Dr. B.

Deer, G.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Stubbs, A. E.

Diamond, J

Logan, D. G

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Dobbie, W.

McAdam, W.

Swingler, S.

Dodds, N. N.

McAllister, G.

Symonds, A. L.

Driberg, T. E. N.

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dumpleton, C. W.

McGhee, H. G.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mack, J. D.

Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McLeavy, F.

Thurtle, Ernest

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Tiffany, S.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Timmons, J.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Titterington, M. F.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Tolley, L.

Ewart, R.

Marquand, H. A.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Fairhurst, F

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Turner-Samuels, M.

Farthing, W. J.

Mellish, R. J.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Fernyhough, E.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Usborne, Henry

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Monslow, W.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Follick, M.

Moody, A. S.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Foot, M M.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Warbey, W N.

Forman, J. C.

Morley, R.

Webb, M, (Bradford, C.)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Weitzman, D.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Wells, P L. (Faversham)

Gallacher, W.

Mort, D. L

Wells, W T. (Walsall)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Moyle, A.

West, D. G.

Gibbins, J

Murray, J. D

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Gilzean, A.

Nally, W.

White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Naylor, T. E.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Gooch, E. G.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Wigg, George

Goodrich, H. E.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Wilkes, L.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Wilkins, W. A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Grey, C. F.

Orbach, M.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Grierson, E.

Paget, R. T.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Gunter, R. J.

Parker, J.

Williams, R. W (Wigan)

Guy, W. H.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Hale, Leslie

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Pearson, A.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Peart, T. F.

Wise, Major F. J.

Hardy, E. A.

Perrins, W.

Woods, G. S.

Harrison, J.

Piratin, P.

Wyatt, W.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Platts-Mills, J. F. F

Yates, V. F.

Henderson, Rt Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Popplewell, E.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Herbison, Miss M.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Hobson, C. R.

Price, M. Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Proctor, W. T.

Mr. Simmons and

Horabin, T. L.

Pryde, D. J.

Mr. George Wallace.

Hoy, J.

Randall, H. E.

1218

1219

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Hope, Lord J.

Odey, G. W.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Beechman, N. A.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Birch, Nigel

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Pickthorn, K.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Raikes, H. V.

Bower, N.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Renton, D

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ropner, Col. L.

Butcher, H. W

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Challen, C.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Channon, H.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Scott, Lord W

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Shepherd, S. (Newark)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

McFarlane, C. S.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Mackeson, Brig. H R

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.

Maclay, Hon. J. S

Snadden, W M.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

MacLeod, J.

Spence, H. R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Maitland, Comdr, J. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Donner, P. W.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Drewe, C.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Marsden, Capt. A.

Studholme, H. G.

Eden, Rt. Hon A

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Touche, G C.

Erroll, F. J.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Turton, R. H.

Fox, Sir G.

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

Vane, W M. F

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Molson, A. H. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

Williams, C (Torquay)

Grimston, R. V.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nield, B. (Chester)

Major Conant and

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Colonel Wheatley.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.50 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  If I might translate a respected expression from the promissory and ephemeral field in which it has been misemployed of late into the sphere of intended enactment, I should be inclined to call this Bill a charter. It is the charter of the little man to the British courts of justice. It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay. Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who is to speak for the Opposition on this Bill, and I have been at the Bar—indeed, going back further to the time when Magna Charta decreed that:
  "To no one will we sell, deny, or delay right or justice."
  —it is an interesting historical reflection that our legal system, admirable though it is, has always been in many respects open to, and it has received, grave criticisms on account of the fact that its benefits were only fully available to those who had purses sufficiently long to pay for them.
  There is the old taunt, the familiar taunt, about His Majesty's courts being open to all just as the grill room at the Ritz Hotel is open to all. Indeed, I suppose that taunt is even more applicable today when the charges at the Ritz Hotel, at any rate in the grill room, are largely controlled, but many of the costs of the litigant are not subject to any legal limit at all. Then there is the very famous sentence imposed by Mr. Justice Maule in a certain bigamy case. A hawker convicted of bigamy urged in extenuation that his wife had left her home and children to live with another man, that he had never seen her since and that he had married the second wife in consequence of the desertion of the first.
  Mr. Justice Maule said, "I will tell you what you ought to have done in
  1222
  the circumstances, and if you say you did not know I must tell you that the law conclusively presumes that you did. You should have instructed your attorney to bring an action against the seducer of your wife for damages. That would have cost you about £100. Having proceeded thus far, you should have employed a proctor and instituted a suit in the ecclesiastic courts for a divorce a mensa et thoro. That would have cost £200 or £300 more. When you had obtained a divorce a mensa et thoro, you only had to obtain a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. That procedure might possibly have been opposed in all its stages in both Houses of Parliament and altogether those proceedings would have cost you £1,000. You will probably tell me that you never had one-tenth of that sum, but that makes no difference. Sitting here as an English judge, it is my duty to tell you that this is not a country in which there is one law for the rich and another for the poor." Then he added, "You will be imprisoned for one day." That was some considerable time ago.
  It is true that from time to time there have been measures taken to ameliorate the position. Indeed, in the very early stages of our legal history one finds that some steps were taken in order to make the courts of His Majesty a little more available to the poor litigant, and in more recent times the problem has, of course, been much discussed. Various committees have been set up to consider it and small reforms of one kind and another have been introduced. But although there has been a great deal of talk about the matter, and although the problem is one which has been very much agitating the minds of at least the legal profession for a considerable time, the validity and the force of the criticism against our system of justice has remained until the present time.
  I rejoice very much that, following the report of the Committee which was set up in 1944, it falls to this Government and to this Parliament not simply to talk about the matter but to take action which we believe will be both far reaching and effective. I do not present this Bill to the House as one which will cure all the defects—and there are defects—in the English system of law. It will not make the administration of law and justice perfect in every respect,

  1223
  and I do not pretend for a moment that it will. For instance, it will do nothing to cheapen the actual costs of litigation which many people regard as being excessive in themselves. It will only have the effect of transferring those costs in certain cases to the Exchequer. It will not simplify the procedure of our law which many people regard as being unduly complicated. It will do nothing to expedite the processes of our courts which, again, many people think are sometimes unduly dilatory.
  These matters are all outside the scope of this Bill, urgently important as of course they are. They are matters which are receiving the active study of two important Committees, the one presided over by Lord Justice Evershed and the other by Mr. Justice Jones, which were established some little time ago by the Lord Chancellor and which in due time will make their reports from which we hope it may be possible to take steps which will improve the general administration of our law in these other respects.
  Nor perhaps does this Bill do quite so much as many people would like to see done, and as I myself certainly should like to see done eventually, for all of the middle classes to whom the costs of litigation are very often either quite prohibitive or ruinous. But the Bill does go a very long way and it will open the doors of His Majesty's courts and make British justice more readily accessible to the great mass of the population who hitherto have too frequently, I am afraid, had to regard these elementary rights—as they ought to be—as luxuries which were beyond their reach. It is by no means the last of the reforms which I hope that we may be able to present to this Parliament. It is by no means the last of the improvements in our system of law which we should like to see accomplished. It is a Bill which marks a very significant and far-reaching step forward in the reform of our legal administration.
  Hon. Members will recall that in 1944 the Committee to study the problem was established under Lord Rushcliffe. I have no doubt that those hon. Members who are especially interested in this subject will have had the advantage of reading the report of that Committee. That report set out in some little detail the
  1224
  history of legal aid and legal advice in comparatively recent times, and I do not propose to canvass or traverse that matter now. It is sufficient to say—and I think that this may be accurately said—that the existing facilities have become wholly and increasingly inadequate.
  There is no official machinery whatsoever for providing legal advice. In this Bill we use the term "legal advice" to mean advice about non-contentious matters, or advice at the earlier stages, before litigation has been decided upon, and we use the term "legal aid" to mean assistance which is given when a stage has been reached at which litigation appears to be necessary. The term "legal aid" is not restricted to the actual processes of litigation. It includes the preliminary steps—the letters which are written, the negotiations which take place, perhaps with a view to avoiding the litigation—but in the Bill it is used to cover those cases where litigation is contemplated and may become necessary.
  So far as advice is concerned, I was saying that there is at present no official machinery whatever for providing legal advice. Those who have stood in need of it and have been unable to pay for it, have had to rely on the facilities of trade unions and on the admirable work of voluntary poor man's lawyer organisations such as the various personal service societies, the Society of Our Lady of Good Counsel, and other similar bodies. In the field of legal aid, that is to say, in the field of litigation, legal aid is only available at present in the civil courts to persons whose incomes are not more than £2 weekly, with capital not exceeding £50, or, in exceptional cases, whose incomes are not more than £4 weekly and whose capital does not exceed £100.
  Under the existing machinery, there are no facilities for remunerating the solicitors and counsel who deal with these cases and who often have conducted them—and it is right that this tribute should be paid to those who have undertaken that work—at considerable personal sacrifice to themselves. Moreover, even that degree of legal aid, on that limited scale, is only available in the High Court, and none at all is provided in the county court, increasingly important as that court is and as I believe it ought to continue to be. Again, in

  1225
  civil proceedings, often involving considerable financial implications and of great importance, such as bastardy and maintenance proceedings in the summary courts before the justices, there is no provision of legal aid at all.
  In the criminal courts the position is slightly different, and, I venture to think, more satisfactory. Indeed, in the criminal courts, whilst this Bill proposes considerable extension of the facilities provided, there is no radical alteration in the structure under which those facilities are made available. But in the criminal court the position today is that—apart from the traditional dock brief under which any prisoner at assizes or quarter sessions who possesses the sum of £1 3s. 6d. is entitled to select one of the counsel, if any, who appear in the row in front of the dock at the time—under the provisions of the Poor Persons Defence Act, 1930, defence certificates may be issued to those whose means are insufficient to enable them to obtain legal aid. In the criminal courts there is no precise income or capital limit in regard to the matter, and these certificates are issued as of right—to poor persons, of course—but as of right in the case of murder, and in other indictable cases they are issued where it appears to be in the interests of justice so to do.
  In, the summary courts, in criminal cases but not in civil or quasi-civil matters with which the justices sometimes deal, certificates may also be granted where it seems desirable to the court in the interests of justice by reason of the gravity of the case or for other special circumstances so to do. That is the existing position. I will not say that it is entirely illusory. In 1938, the last normal year—and even that was a year which, perhaps, it is not quite correct to regard as normal, because it followed immediately upon the passage of a Statute increasing the grounds upon which divorce might be granted, and was consequently one in which the number of matrimonial cases was higher than had previously been the case—on both the civil and criminal sides together, over 12,000 people availed themselves of the facilities available, by far the greater number of those being in matrimonial matters. But, in practice, particularly, I think, in the civil courts where there was not an exact income limit, it is right to say that legal aid certificates were not
  1226
  granted sufficiently readily or sufficiently early to enable the cases to be properly prepared before they came to trial.
  In the civil courts, of course, the income and the capital limits were so low that vast numbers of people who were still, by all standards, certainly poor people, were outside the scope of the machinery available. Even those who were within it—and one got there the most impoverished classes of the community within the scope of the income and capital limits—were often prevented from using the facilities owing to the necessity of depositing a small sum of money—small by present day standards, but not small to them, £5 or thereabouts—in respect of disbursements and out-of-pocket expenses. Moreover, the existing arrangements were subject to the further criticism—and I think a serious one—that the scheme depended on the good will and charity of the legal profession. The fees paid, both in the criminal courts and in the civil courts, to solicitors and counsel were really completely inadequate.
  That is a picture of the position in regard to this matter up to the outbreak of war. During the war, the inadequacy of the existing facilities became more and more marked, and protests were made by professional bodies that they were really quite unable to go on working the scheme. Eventually, legal aid and advice schemes for members of the Military Forces were established, and the Services Divorce Department, which did most important work, was set up. These schemes handled something like a quarter of a million cases, 40,000 of which actually led to litigation, mainly, of course, in the matrimonial courts. But that scheme, whilst it was one of very great value during the war to men and women in the Services, did not, of course, provide a permanent solution of the problem, and is only available now in a very limited number of cases.
  It was in consequence of that situation, and of the position which it was realised would arise at the conclusion of the war, that, in 1944, the Rushcliffe Committee was established to consider and report upon the matter. In 1945 they did report, and they recommended the establishment of an entirely new structure of aid in the civil courts, and, in regard to civil matters, a new structure which was to be operated by both branches of the legal

  1227
  profession. Since that time, the Government having announced its acceptance in principle of the proposals of the Rushcliffe Committee, the details have been the subject of a great deal of study by both branches of the profession.
  The scheme is, of course, one which depends, and depends entirely, on the full co-operation of both sections of the legal profession, the Bar and the solicitors. It was necessary to obtain the consent of the Law Society and of the Bar Council to undertake the very responsible and onerous duties which the proposals would impose upon them. It is right, I think, to say that the Bar Council and the Law Society have worked upon this matter with a degree of co-operation between each other which has hitherto been quite unequalled, and which augurs very well both for the success of the present Measure and, I hope, also for other Measures of reform in our law and procedure in time to come.
  The Government have received the fullest support from both branches of the profession. Neither the Bar Council nor the Law Society have spared themselves in helping to draw up a really workable scheme on the general lines laid down in the Rushcliffe Report. This Bill is the result of the work done between the two branches of the profession and the Government in order to implement the proposals of the Rushcliffe Committee. It is based upon those proposals, it follows them in most of its important details, and, indeed, I think it is right to say, although there may be a number of quite minor differences, that in only two significant respects does it depart at all from the general principles of the Rushcliffe proposals. In one case it extends the proposed facilities to a rather wider circle, and in the other it slightly restricts the classes of litigation in respect of which the facilities will be available.
  It is, of course, a skeleton Bill; it does not pretend to be more. It seeks simply to lay down the general principles and outline of the scheme, leaving the rest of it to be filled in, in part by regulations to be made hereafter, and in part by the actual scheme itself to be drawn up by the Law Society and the Bar Council, and to be approved by the Lord Chancellor. Hon. Members will appreciate that the scheme itself is bound to be an
  1228
  extremely lengthy, very complicated, and technical affair. Even now its provisions have not been fully worked out in detail, and, in any event, it is a matter which it would be quite inappropriate to include in a Bill of this kind. All that this Bill seeks to do is to deal with the general structure. Even in that regard, I venture to think that this is perhaps a Committee Bill rather than a Second Reading Bill. We shall, I hope, on all sides of the House, agree about the general principles on Second Reading. There may be many aspects which we can discuss together on Committee, and if proposals can be made, from whichever side they come, to improve the Bill, we shall be very ready and glad to consider them.
  I should now like to indicate, quite broadly, the main features of the Bill in this sense: the tribunals before which legal aid will be given; the classes of proceedings in which legal aid will be available; the classes of people who will qualify for legal aid; the conditions upon which the legal aid may be given; and the general machinery for its administration. Then I shall say a word—indeed, I shall deal with this first—about legal advice, and a word or two about the separate problem of legal aid in the criminal courts.
  First, a word about legal advice. I explained to the House the connotation of that item. In Clause 6 of the Bill, solicitors who will be employed by the local committees to be established under the scheme, either whole time or part time, for this specific purpose, will be available in the different localities to give oral advice to those who seek it and who appear to be unable to pay for it in the ordinary way. Here there will be no precise income or capital limits, no elaborate inquiry about the matter, but if the solicitor who is employed to deal with this matter considers that the applicant is one who could not obtain advice in the ordinary course, then oral advice will be given.
  I say "oral advice." It may, of course, include the dictation of a letter which it is suggested that the client might suitably write. It might include advice as to an inquiry which the client ought to make or other steps he ought to take so as to

  1229
  protect his interests, but it will not include obtaining counsel's opinion or anything more elaborate or formal in the way of written advice. It may, of course, include advice to apply for legal aid with a view to bringing an action if a certificate for legal aid is granted. In that case the matter will be gone into more fully under the litigation certificate. Counsel's opinion might be taken in appropriate cases and more formal and written advice given. This is supposed to be a somewhat informal matter, quite oral, and the maximum charge for it is 2s. 6d.—that is, if the client appears to be able to pay for it—and nothing at all if it seems that that would be an undue charge to make.
  We hope very much that the existing contact, and it is a most valuable contact, between the existing poor man's lawyers, the various social service organisations and social workers will be continued. That is something which is most useful and it very often happens that, whilst a lawyer can give advice on purely legal matters and can recommend litigation, can lead his client to the machinery of protracted action in the courts, the social workers, in their different way, are able to bring about a different but cheaper and more amicable solution to the problem. We should like to think that although the poor man's lawyers will not be part of the scheme co-operation between them will exist.
  I return to the first Clause of the Bill and that, read with the first Schedule, deals with the tribunals before which, and the cases in which, legal aid will be available. I think it is in this Clause that hon. Members will find the only significant departure from the proposals in the Rushcliffe Report. Hon. Members will recall that the report recommended that legal aid should be available before all tribunals in front of which solicitors or counsel had a right of audience and in all cases which could be litigated before such tribunals. We have given the most careful study to this problem and we have felt that it is impossible, for practical reasons rather than on any grounds of principle or logic, fully to implement that recommendation.
  There are a large number of tribunals—I think it is something approaching 100—of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature outside the ordinary legal hierarchy, but
  1230
  before which lawyers have a right of audience, although in practice they very rarely exercise it and very rarely appear. There are a number of more or less obsolete courts—such as borough courts of record—before which, in practice, legal proceedings are not taken at all. If the doors of all those tribunals, quasi-judicial and quasi-obsolete, were opened to free legal aid it is felt that the proceedings before them would become perhaps more numerous and certainly unduly prolonged; and that one of the benefits of these tribunals, the informal atmosphere before them, would disappear and that an excessively litigious and technical atmosphere might be developed in its place.
  Moreover, and this is one of the main practical considerations which have led us to the conclusion we have reached. it is certain that the profession itself, which contains only about 2,000 practising barristers and 11,000 practising solicitors, would be hopelessly overburdened. Two thousand barristers seems a lot—I always used to think it was about 1,999 too many—but in practice, when it is spread over the whole country, it is a very small number, especially when it is recalled that quite a large proportion of them do not engage in litigation in courts. Further, 11,000 practising solicitors is not a very large number.
  For those reasons we have felt that it is essential to limit legal aid to the ordinary courts of justice but including now, of course, the county court in which so many actions are brought. Legal aid will thus be available in the ordinary courts before which the ordinary action, action between party and party, is normally brought. That will leave outside the scope of the Bill some tribunals, important tribunals—tribunals like the pensions appeal tribunals, the rents tribunals and some of the discipline tribunals which have been established under various codes. They are tribunals which do most useful work but they seem to do it quite effectively and they seem to get along quite well—I regret to say—without having members of the legal profession appearing before them.
  For a similarity of reasons, not of principle or logic but of practicability and expediency, it has been felt necessary to exclude, at all events for the present, certain classes of litigation, and those

  1231
  classes are set out in the second part of the first Schedule. They include various classes of action in which experience has shown—and I think there will be general agreement on this broad statement of the position—that there is most room for bringing vexatious, frivolous, unmeritorious or unnecessary claims. The most important of these, I suppose, are libel and slander. I do not say an action for libel or slander is never properly brought. In some cases, quite obviously, it is properly brought and naturally I would readily agree that the character and reputation of a poor person is just as deserving of legal protection as that of the wealthy individual, but it is a form of action which is open to great abuse and, moreover, it is a most precarious and risky form of action.
  I was trying to remember, and although I myself have advised in a great many possible cases of libel, I do not recall more than one case—and I will not mention which one—in which I advised anybody to bring an action for libel. In scores of cases I have advised against it, and if I were to give a little free advice now to anyone who is concerned in such a matter, I would say that if they think they have been libelled or slandered the best thing to do is to put a good face on it and not advertise the fact. There are many exceptional cases, but that is my general advice, given gratuitously. Equally, and this is advice I have taken myself on occasions, if other people think I have libelled and slandered them I think the best thing is to put a good face on it and apologise and not to engage in litigation which may be exceedingly costly and highly uncertain as to its eventual results.
  We think this scheme would be gravely overloaded if every slander which was uttered across the back garden wall were made an appropriate subject for litigation at the expense of the State. Similarly, we exclude action for breach of promise of marriage. Sometimes these are perfectly justified and meritorious actions, but many of them are actions of rather a blackmailing type. We have also excluded what I think are called the enticement actions—a peculiar form of proceeding, not very common I am glad to say, and sometimes, of course, justified, but again a form of action open to great abuse. Similarly, we have excluded
  1232
  common informer actions which have no merit at all so far as the common informer is concerned, and one or two actions of a more technical kind.
  In connection with this part of the Bill, I only add that the list in the second part of the first Schedule is not intended to be final. Experîence might show that there were other causes of action which were being made the subject of excessive litigation and in which the scheme was being abused. On the other hand, experience might show, once the scheme had got going and the system was in its stride, that it would be possible to bring in some of the cases which at the initial stage we have had to exclude. If either of those possibilities arises it will be possible to deal with it by way of regulation approved by the House.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: May I ask the Attorney-General whether it will be possible by regulation to bring into the Act proceedings before the tribunals?
  The Attorney-General: Presumably the hon. Member means before the tribunals which are not within the Bill at present—other classes of proceeding or other classes of tribunal. That will be possible. It may appear, in the course of time, that it is necessary so to do, but I have caused some inquiry to be made as to the extent to which in practice legal representation takes place before these other tribunals. The tribunal which is sitting at present is, perhaps, not a very good example of that. It was the more normal type of tribunal which I had in mind.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Town and Country Planning, for instance.
  The Attorney-General: That is the sort of tribunal where I should have thought legal representation was fairly common, but the persons concerned in that type of litigation, as a rule, are hardly the ones who would come within the scope of this provision. I say, "as a rule." One finds, as a rule, counsel at such a tribunal employed at high fees and acting for fairly wealthy clients. But before the tribunals which are most active just now—pensions appeal tribunals, rents tribunals, the discipline tribunals—inquiries which I have made suggest that legal representation is the exception rather than the rule. As time

  1233
  goes on, and if experience suggests that there is some tribunal dealing with rather technical matters before which legal representation is necessary, the situation could be dealt with then.
  The scheme of the Bill at the moment is to seek to cover by far the vast majority of the ordinary actions in the ordinary courts of justice. All those will be within its scope and any attempt to extend it further now by the inclusion either of excepted causes of action or excepted tribunals, while indeed it is arguable—and I concede at once that it is arguable on grounds of principle or logic—might result in making, as it were, the better the enemy of the good. That is why we have thought it right to limit these provisions of the Bill at this stage.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I interrupt with a question of some materiality? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that libel actions should not be included because of the character of the majority of such actions and that representation at tribunals should not be permitted because counsel and solicitors do not attend so very many tribunals. Is he not assuming, in this case, that certificates for legal aid would be granted? Is there not a check in this Bill, a check designed by the Rushcliffe Committee, in the refusal of certificates for legal aid where the action would be frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable?
  The Attorney-General: I quite agree, and I personally attach great importance to the work of the local committees as acting as a kind of filter through which cases have to pass before litigation certificates are granted. Naturally, we considered very carefully whether that would be an adequate way of dealing with this class of case, but we came to the conclusion that at this stage to include these types of litigation or the extra-judicial tribunals would be to overload the scheme and would probably result in considerable and troublesome departures from uniformity in administration and practice in the early stages. That would be by reason of the fact that some committees would take the view, "You think you have been libelled or slandered; we cannot have slander as a ground for a certificate"; whereas other committees would take a different view.
  1234
  We thought, having regard to the practical considerations—the shortage of personnel, the cost of the scheme, and so on—that the best thing at this stage was to say, "Exclude these altogether; see how the scheme works, wait until it has got into its stride, and then consider whether the exclusion of these causes of action or different types of tribunal is really resulting in any serious injustice or complaint." I say at once that I should have liked to have seen the full proposal of the Rushcliffe Committee adopted. I think it is the logical and the best thing that one can easily support on grounds of principle. But after the closest study of the matter we felt that so to do would be prejudicing the chances of the scheme in its initial stages. As it is, it will result in an enormous increase in the work of the courts and of the profession, and we felt quite clear that to go further than we have would be to overload this scheme and perhaps to endanger its success.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Attorney-General has spoken about courts and tribunals, but not a word has been said about arbitrations which are very common nowadays, especially in relation to contracts of employment where very often poor employees are concerned. What does the Attorney-General say with regard to the exclusion entirely of arbitration cases from this Bill?
  The Attorney-General: I say in regard to that sort of case exactly what I have said in regard to the other tribunals. They again are a class of litigation in which very often the parties are able to pay for the costs of that about which they arbitrate, and in which, on the other hand, I regret to say very often professional advisers are not employed. We felt in regard to arbitrations, which are of a very varied character, and which may arise not under any statute but merely as a result of an agreement between party and party, that at this stage, at any rate, the State should not step in and say, "You, party A and party B, having agreed that your dispute will be the subject of arbitration, can now come and ask the State to pay the costs of it."
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: How can one reconcile that in the case of a contract which has no arbitration clause a person

  1235
  may go to the High Court and have legal aid, whereas merely because a contract has an arbitration clause the person cannot be assisted at all?
  The Attorney-General: I have said that I shall not attempt to justify these provisions on any grounds of logic or principle, but it is open to the parties to decide whether they will have recourse to His Majesty's ordinary courts, in which case they will qualify for such provision of legal aid and assistance as is made under this Bill, or whether they will exclude the jurisdiction of the courts and go to arbitration. If they decide by their own voluntary contracts to exclude the provisions relating to the courts and go to arbitration, one of the consequences of that, which will no doubt be present to their minds when they make that agreement, will be that they will not qualify for legal aid under this Bill.
  If I were asked to justify that particular exclusion on grounds of principle and logic, I should not feel the slightest difficulty in doing so. What is more difficult to justify is the case where there are existing tribunals of a quasi-judicial nature set up under statute, before which parties have to appear in order to litigate particular classes of dispute. That is a difficult case, and it is more difficult to justify. The case of an arbitration arising under an agreement seems to be a matter entirely within the control of the parties who make that agreement.
  Now I come to the classes of person who will qualify for legal aid within the limits which I have just indicated. Here the Bill is wider and more generous in its scope than the Rushcliffe Committee proposed. Legal aid will be available to those whose disposable—and that is a word which is used in the Bill—income and disposable capital do not exceed £3 and £75 respectively; it will be available to those persons free of all charge, and will be available on a contributory basis to those whose disposable income and disposable capital do not exceed £420 and £500 respectively.
  Let me now say a word about "disposable," because that word qualifies very much the figures which I have given, and leads in the result to the fact that legal aid will be available to persons with a considerably higher income than £420 and an appreciably higher capital than £500. In reckoning income and
  1236
  capital for the purposes of the scheme, a large number of exclusions and allowances, and what I think are called disregards in the practice of the National Assistance Board, are made; notably, for instance—and I shall not attempt to recite them all because I do not know them all, and it would take time to do so—an allowance of £1 per week in income, and £75 in capital, will be made for married men. There will be further allowances for children according to the number of them. The result is that income and capital limits below which aid will be entirely free in the case of the married man with no children will be £4 and £150.
  Nor is that all. The National Assistance Board will make other allowances. I mention the National Assistance Board because, as hon. Members will have seen, it is that Board whose duty it will be to administer this part of the scheme and to assess the amount of an applicant's disposable income and disposable capital. As I have said, the National Assistance Board will make other allowances; for instance, an allowance for the rent where the rent exceeds 15s. per week, an allowance for Income Tax, and an allowance for other statutory and annual payments. I think that the net result of all the allowances, exclusions and disregards will bring the gross income within which an applicant may still qualify for legal aid to something between £550 and £750.
  Similarly, in regard to disposable capital, a man's interest in his dwelling house, his furniture, his tools of trade and so on, will normally be disregarded. These matters are dealt with in Clauses 2, 3 and 4, and in the Second Schedule, and regulations may be made in regard to the matter. I will not go into that in further detail, but it will be seen from that which I have said that a very large section of the community—indeed, a very large section of the so-called middleclasses—will benefit from the scheme.
  This, however, must be added. Above the limits of £3 and £4 in the case of a married man, of income, and £75 and £150 in the case of a married man, of capital, the scheme will be on a contributory basis, and the litigant will be called upon to assist towards the cost of the litigation. The amount of the contribution will be fixed by the local committee which will have before it any

  1237
  representations that the Assistance Board may think right to make in regard to the litigant's capacity to pay in a particular case, but the contribution will not exceed half the difference between the amount of the minimum income limit of £156 a year and £420 a year, and the whole of the difference between the capital limit of £75 or £150 and £500.
  There again we have made an improvement on the Rushcliffe proposal. The non-contributable capital—£75 or £150—exceeds the figures suggested in the Rushcliffe Report. On the other hand, it is fair and right to say—because one does not want to hold out false hopes about the Bill or to pretend that it does more than it does do—that those in the higher income ranges may have to bear a substantial proportion of the costs. In the cheaper form of litigation they may indeed have to pay the whole of them. I will give one example. A man with a net income of £400 a year after allowing for all the disregards, who has saved up £500 in addition perhaps to his house, fights an action the cost of which is say £500, as it might well be. He may be called upon to pay out of his income £98—that is to say, half the difference between £400 and £208—and £350 out of his capital. He might have to contribute nearly £450 towards the cost of that action. That would be his maximum contribution. If the costs were less than that, he might be called upon to bear the whole of them.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is that on the assumption that he lost the action?
  The Attorney-General: These would be his own costs. Of course, it might well be that the costs would be payable by the other side, but this would be his liability for costs if the costs could not be recovered elsewhere. I am coming to the question of the further costs. If he lost the action he might have to pay the defendant's costs. I am going to say a word about that in a moment, but that is the case of a man who has capital in addition to his dwelling house. If he had any capital other than his dwelling house, his maximum contribution in that case where his income is that which I have mentioned would be £98, which the local committee might require him to pay by suitable instalments. That is the position in regard to the income and capital
  1238
  limits, and it is estimated that the scheme within those limits will bring within the scope of the Bill about 12 million people—a quarter of the population of the country. It is estimated further—and the estimate must be a little more than a reasoned guess—that about 100,000 cases will be assisted in the course of each year.
  One further matter remains to be said, and that is the liability to pay the costs of the other side if one is unsuccessful. That liability, of course, has in the past always been a most powerful deterrent to the poor man engaging in litigation at all. He may think, and his lawyers may advise him, that he has got a just and a legal claim, but, fortunately for the lawyers, law is not an exact science and, short of the House of Lords, there is no certainty about it. The result is that although a man may be convinced of the justice of his cause and advised as to his probable chances of success in the courts, he will feel forced to refrain from litigation because of the risk that he may lose, and that if he does lose and is called upon to pay the defendant's costs he will be ruined.
  Consequently, if we were going to open the doors of the courts freely to all the persons regardless of their means, it would plainly not have been enough, simply to provide them with legal aid in bringing their claims. The risk of paying the costs of the other side if unsuccessful would still have remained a most powerful deterrent to the poor man. On the other hand, of course—and this is equally to be considered, and has been considered—that very risk of having to pay the costs if unsuccessful has been a powerful and proper deterrent against bringing unjustified claims. It is the only deterrent now. At one time I think there were other forms of deterrent. The pillory and the whip were used against those litigants who had the misfortune to fail in cases before the courts. Bacon has something to say about the facilities which have been given for bringing actions resulting in persons vexing rather than suing. It was obviously a deterrent against the bringing of blackmailing actions or actions which it was hoped would be settled, and actions which were not thought likely to succeed. Whipping and the pillory have gone, but in these modern

  1239
  times it is certainly true that the risk of being dragged up to the House of Lords, even if one has been successful in the court of first instance, by wealthier opponents has been a most powerful deterrent to people who might have been able to pay their own costs but just could not afford the risk of having to pay the costs of the other side.
  In these circumstances the Rushcliffe Committee recommended what may have seemed to be a very reasonable compromise—that the assisted litigant, if he turned out to be unsuccessful, should be required to pay only such sums in costs as the tribunal thought reasonable in all the circumstances, and that, in addition, his dwelling house should be protected against execution. That proposal we have adopted in this Bill. The assisted plaintiff will be saved from ruin if the case turns out to be unsuccessful; and, on the other hand, from the point of view of the successful defendant, the protection which the liability to pay costs affords him will not be entirely withdrawn. It will be remembered that in this class of case, where the protection is diminished, he will also be protected against frivolous claims by the fact that the action will have to pass through the filter of the local committee.
  That brings me to the question of machinery. The Law Society, which, in this connection, is to discharge its functions through a committee consisting of members of both branches of the profession, will, in due time, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, make a scheme establishing 12 area committees and 110 local committees, themselves composed, as far as local possibilities enable that to be done, of members of both branches of the profession. The area committees will be responsible for the general organisation and administration of the scheme in their areas, for the preparation of panels of barristers and solicitors from which intending litigants can choose their own solicitors and their own counsel as they wish, and for the appointment of the local committees, and the hearing of appeals from the decisions of the local committees.
  The local committees, on the other hand, will consider and determine the applications that are made to them for legal aid, will decide whether a prima
  1240
  facie case has been disclosed, whether it is a case which it is reasonable and good business to bring, and what, if any, contributions ought to be made towards the cost of it; there being a right of appeal to the area committee if the intended litigant dislikes the decision. In addition, the Lord Chancellor will have an advisory committee, composed of such people as he thinks right, to assist him in the general supervision of the scheme which the Bill proposes.
  Then there is the question of finance. The Bill, obviously, is going to cost money. One of the criticisms of the existing scheme was that, apart from its limited scope, it depended entirely on the charity of the profession. It is perfectly true that help was generously and readily given, but it was not right that, in a matter of this kind, litigants should have to depend on the generosity and public spirit of those who had the time to devote to this kind of work. Nor would it have been right under these proposals to withdraw from the legal profession 25 per cent. of their potential clients without providing that they should get some fees in respect of the work they were called upon to do.
  The Bill provides for the payment of proper fees—55 per cent. of the taxed costs in the High Court—which means that solicitors will forgo half of their net private costs, and barristers will forgo 15 per cent. of the fees, assessed on a different basis, which they would otherwise be entitled to charge. In the county court and in the police court the margins of costs are much narrower, and it has not been possible to make that cut, so that the full taxed costs—but they will be taxed costs—will be payable to the profession. The total cost of the scheme is estimated—and again I say, quite frankly, that it is difficult to estimate—at something of the order of £4,370,000. It is thought that a substantial part of that will be met by contributions by the litigants and by costs which are recovered, leaving about £2,000,000 to be borne by the Exchequer in the form of a block grant to be provided to and administered by the Law Society. I should perhaps add just this in regard to that aspect of the matter, that the Law Society will furnish estimates and accounts to the Lord Chancellor, and that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will report each year

  1241
  upon them to Parliament. Both matters are dealt with in Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill.
  Now I come—I am afraid I have been rather long about all this, but it is a little technical—to the position in the criminal courts; and about that I can, indeed, be very brief. There, as I said, the proposals in the Bill do not involve any substantial interference with the existing structure. Clauses 15 to 17 provide that legal aid should be available in all cases tried in the criminal courts where it is desirable, in the interests of justice, that that should be done. In cases of doubt, the doubt is to be resolved in favour of the applicant, and machinery is to be provided to ensure that legal aid certificates are granted in sufficient time to enable cases to be properly worked out and prepared. There will be, no rigid income or capital limits, nor will any contribution be required from those to whom legal aid is granted; and in the criminal courts, consequently, both the courts where cases are tried on indictment and the summary courts, the provisions for legal aid will have a very wide scope, depending upon the discretion of the judge or the justices to whom the application for aid is made. Finally, in regard to the criminal courts, provision will be made in regulations—and these can be made under the existing law—for the payment of proper fees to the solicitors and counsel who undertake this responsible work upon the taxation of their costs in the ordinary way.
  That is, I think, a general picture of the whole of the provisions in this Bill. I said it was really a Committee rather than a Second Reading Bill, and, no doubt, there are many points which will have to be discussed and clarified in the course of our Debates upstairs. If there are points which are raised on the Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will deal with them. In saying that, I should wish to apologise to the House, as I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend and colleague the Solicitor-General would wish me to do, for his absence on this occasion. He has taken a considerable part in the preparation of this Bill. He would have wished to be here today, but he is at the moment engaged in exceedingly important litigation at the Permanent Court of International Justice, and he could not be here.
  1242
  However, my hon. Friend, who is particularly familiar, of course, with the criminal side of the matter—which is why I have dealt with it very briefly, because it is the responsibility of the Home Office—will deal with any points that may arise in the course of our Debate here.
  I commend this Bill to the House by saying that it really is an important and useful Bill, which marks, I think, an important step forward in the administration of our law; and a Bill which will, at last, remove the grave reproach that, excellent as our system of law and justice and administration has been in other respects, and admirable as are our courts, they were too often a luxury which was available only to the wealthier sections of the community.
  4.55 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you and I have every reason to know that the House is generally reluctant to be orally "butched" to make a lawyers' holiday, but I hope that on this occasion the results of this Measure, and the degree to which it touches the interests and lives of ordinary people, will be the excuse of my profession. I am sure that the House—every quarter of it—is grateful to the right hon and learned Gentleman for his lucid presentation of the provisions of the Bill. The Opposition is in general agreement with this Bill, which substantially incorporates the provisions of the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee set up by Lord Simon in 1944. That was an all-party and no-party committee, containing judges, barristers, solicitors, social workers, and politicians, of great eminence and experience. I should like to pay tribute and all my hon. Friends—I hope I may say the whole House—would like to pay tribute to the skilful and patient work of that committee.
  I am sure the House would like to go from us to an old colleague in the person of Lord Rushcliffe our best wishes for his recovery at the moment, as well as our gratitude for the work he has done. I am glad to think that we have still a member of the committee in this House, in the person of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and it may be, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will give us later, an opportunity of hearing what he has to say.

  1243
  I want—because the learned Attorney has rather suggested it—to keep my remarks to the more general aspects of the matter, and leave any questions of details for the Committee stage. However, it is not without interest, I think, to recall that it was not only the Government and this committee which examined the problem with which we are now dealing. It is interesting that both the great political parties examined it in the last years of the war. I shall refer in a moment to an interesting result to which the Labour Party's examination led. If the House will forgive the personal intrusion, as Chairman of the Post-War Problems Committee of the Conservative Party, I appointed a committee on reforms in the administration of justice, which reported to us and suggested a scheme along very similar lines, with, curiously enough, remarkably similar limits, to those we are considering.
  It is interesting that that should have happened in both parties at the end of the war, because I think the paradox is generally true, that most people in this country express admiration for our legal system, but equally desire to have as little personal contact with it as is humanly possible. Although the law, we believe, adapts itself to the changing conditions of the country, there is remarkably little interest among laymen in the practice and procedure of the law. I believe it was a repercussion of the fact that, to a great many people, an important aspect of the war was the contest between the rule of law and the exercise of arbitrary and tyrannical power, which spread the interest of that time and made everyone ready to examine the difficulties that impaired the individual's power of establishing his rights.
  It is in that spirit that the matter has been approached, and the necessity which underlies the Bill cannot be overlooked, just as it has engaged the attention of legislators and social reformers for many years. It has been, and it should be, the maxim of our constitutional law, that every man is equal before the law, but it has been notorious that going to law is an expensive occupation; it is inevitable, if we consider it fairly, that it is impossible to place at the disposal of the public, at a low cost, the work of a profession whose only justification is hard-earned experience and specialised
  1244
  knowledge. Therefore, the methods of assisting poor persons to enforce their rights have been introduced piecemeal. I agree with the Attorney-General that at the moment the matter has gone furthest in the criminal courts. The present Bill does not affect our approach in that matter, but merely extends it; therefore, like him, I do not propose to discuss these suggestions at any length.
  I want to remind the House of the position of the present Poor Persons Rules, and, as I believe, of their inadequacy. They are partly inadequate because they do not extend to the county courts, which today, with their additional jurisdiction and with the additional important matters referred to them, are very important. They are also inadequate because, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, they give an upward limit of £2 a week, extendible in special cases to £4 a week, which, as a matter of interest, was fixed in 1914, although it was not applied until 1926. Therefore, there were these facilities for the lowest income ranges, but for those in the next income range, and especially in divorce cases, there has hitherto been no assistance, the result often being a denial of human as well as of legal rights. This is especially noticeable when, as I have just reminded the House, we take into account the fact that these low limits were fixed as appropriate some 34 years ago.
  The next point we ought to consider is whether Members agree with the principle of contribution in appropriate cases. I believe it is right, and all the evidence of those who have examined the matter has supported that view. My own view of my fellow countrymen is that the majority who have the money would much rather make some contribution than be entirely dependent on what they get from the State or other people. The next question which I am sure the House would like me to face frankly, as well as the other legal Members, is whether the legal profession ought to be paid, or whether it ought to give this service for nothing. It has hitherto given the Poor Persons' Service for nothing, and, more than that, there has been a considerable body of evidence from solicitors, accustomed to deal with poor persons' divorce cases, that the average expense, that is the actual out-of-pocket expense apart from doing the work, is £15 for poor

  1245
  persons' divorces which they handle. I do not think many Members would consider it either right or practicable that the legal profession should take on this greatly extended burden, and, as the Attorney-General said, through its existence lose the chance of clients, without some payment being made. I believe it is right, and, as I have said, I believe that the existing procedure would collapse if we endeavoured to extend it without making that addition.
  On the question of public demand, the increased demand is shown most clearly by the experience of the many admirable legal aid centres that have been established by voluntary effort throughout the country. Most of my legal colleagues here have been a "poor man's lawyer," as it was called in my day, in some part of the country and know what the work means. It is fascinating but very difficult work, and work which it has been a great privilege to do. I will quote, as an example, the experience of Cambridge House, which is the largest of such centres. Between 1899 and 1900, 224 persons were given legal advice; in 1923, the number had risen to 1,780, and between 1936 and 1939, the average was 3,000. In the year ended March, 1944, the letters and interviews at Cambridge House totalled 12,000. That was voluntary work, and it shows as clearly as anything the increase in demand. Any of my colleagues who have done this work know how infinitely the cases can vary from the simplest matters to the most intricate problems.
  It is essential that, in devising a scheme to deal with this situation, we should bear in mind maintenance of the assisted litigant's confidence in his legal adviser. That means ensuring that he can, if he wishes, have a reasonable range of choice in his legal adviser, and it also means assuring him that his legal adviser is independent of State or other controls. In this connection, I would remind the House of the very notable words contained in the Labour Party's memorandum after examination of this subject, which are quoted in paragraph 129 of the Rushcliffe Report.
  "There are obvious objections to the State itself establishing and maintaining legal advice bureaux. Not the least of these objections is that the State itself is directly and indirectly affected by many of the claims upon which such bureaux would have to advise. Nor, in the opinion of the Labour Party, is it desirable
  1246
  that local authorities should be entrusted with the duty of establishing and maintaining legal advice bureaux. Differences, political or otherwise, might well arise were a local authority to be held responsible, directly or indirectly, for the advice given in any particular matter. It has to be borne in mind that many local authorities, particularly those engaged in passenger transport undertakings, are themselves frequently parties to litigation."
  The same view was taken in the memorandum of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the Rushcliffe Committee endorse that view most emphatically and heartily. To show a most unusual unanimity, the same view was taken by the Conservative Committee which I had the honour to set up. There is, as far as I can see, general agreement for the maintenance of the independence of the profession and the freest and clearest advice to the litigant at his own choice. I hope the people who have been afraid of any infringement of that matter will realise the anticipatory unanimity against it, and will also realise the Bill proceeds on that basis and wishes to maintain that independence completely unfettered.
  The Attorney-General dealt with the administration by the Law Society, and again I want to limit my remarks to the most general comments. I am very glad that the scheme is to be framed by a committee drawn from the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar. That committee should produce a scheme which will deal with this situation as well as can be. I am also very glad that there has been the closest co-operation, at every stage of this matter, between the Government and the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar. That certainly augurs well for the operation of the scheme.
  The critical point in the scheme, which will make the difference between success and failure, is the operation of the 110 local committees. There is obviously the argument that the extension of this power of litigation will mean a flood of litigation, the courts and the profession being overwhelmed by the rush of work. We all know there are those who desire litigation, and we all know in our profession, although I do not for a moment ask the layman to give us credit for it, that the amount we do in stopping litigation is not an inconsiderable part of our work. If this is going to work we must have some control of the vexatious and

  1247
  frivolous litigant, and that is going to depend on the work of the local committees. I am sure the House will extend their best wishes to them when they are constituted, and would like to impress upon them our realisation of the importance of the work they are going to do.
  The Attorney-General has given the reasons for not including the various tribunals and arbitrations, and I realise the force of the point that he has made. We shall all examine this problem and see exactly how the limitation is going to work. There are certain tribunals—and these tribunals grow more numerous every day—in which the litigant of small means may have to appear. I appreciate—and I have not considered before the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) about arbitration—that insurance arbitration, where there is a person of small means who has a motor bicycle or a small car and has got into difficulties about his insurance policy, is one class that might have to be considered.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Such a person has no option; the policy is issued in that form and he has to take it with that clause in it or else have no policy at all.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and although I appreciate the difficulty of differentiation on any ground of principle between such a person and a party who has taken out an enormous contract on marine insurance, in practice that problem might be worthy of consideration. But the Attorney-General's point here was, "This is a scheme which may increase litigation quite considerably, and what we want to do with the machinery is to build it well so that, before we extend it, it can take the strain that we put on it," and while appreciating that point, we want to consider the practical results.
  The next point which I should like to put quite frankly before the House is that of the contribution which the legal profession is making to costs. The general scheme, as the House is aware, is that counsel will get 85 per cent. of the fees allowed on taxation and solicitors will get 85 per cent. of their profit costs. To the layman it is worth making quite clear at this point what that means.
  1248
  It does not mean that counsel will automatically get 85 per cent. of the fee which their clerks ask for, or that their solicitor thinks appropriate, or which may be appropriate to their deserts, but it means that the bill will be taxed by the taxing master, who is someone accustomed to dealing with cases of that kind, and he will fix what is the ordinary fee which is not a fancy fee given to special people or anything of that sort. Of what the taxing master thinks is an ordinary fee, counsel will then get 85 per cent. Similarly, profit costs mean the payment the solicitor actually gets for his work, and not, of course, disbursements and out-of-pocket expenses. He will get 85 per cent, of that.
  Mr. Royle: A possible way to look at it would be to consider the 15 per cent. as discount for cash payment?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman must not lead me into a very interesting but slightly embarrassing bypath. What I feel is that the House should know what is the contribution of the profession. The House should bear in mind the large amount of small litigation where fees are already very small, such as two guineas, three guineas, five guineas, or 10 guineas in a county court. That is a fee which does not give much opportunity for reduction. On the other side, I firmly believe that the £2 million, which is the estimated cost to the Exchequer, is cheap if the service will deal with the mischief and difficulty which we know exists in this matter.
  My final major problem is that of the upward limits and the method of assessing them. Nobody could have been as long in this House or in politics as I have without realising the immense distaste which any form of means test creates in hon. Members in all parts of the House. Therefore, we have to approach this problem with that in mind, but I am firmly convinced that in this problem there is nothing else to be done, because somehow we must fix an upward limit beyond which people can afford to pay for themselves. What can be done is, first, to lay down with great clarity so that there will not be any mistake about it, how that limit is to be arrived at, and then to provide generously for exceptions, so that there will not be any squalid bickering about any minor difference. A

  1249
  real attempt has been made to do that. I sincerely trust that the choice of the National Assistance Board with their great experience to apply the principles laid down will help the great experiment which is being attempted.
  The House will agree with me when I say that this is a workable method of starting the matter, and we shall want to hear from the Attorney-General how it is functioning once the scheme comes into operation. I hope we shall hear that there are no difficulties arising, particularly of the kind which, at this stage, we might think could arise. Broadly, this is a workable and helpful scheme, which will improve the position of a section of the community which badly needs help, and will, at the same time, preserve the independence of a great profession, giving members of that profession an even greater chance of serving, their fellow men.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you would be the first to appreciate the diffidence with which I, as a humble member of the junior branch of the profession, intervene in this Debate after the very lucid speeches we have just heard from the two distinguished Members who adorn the senior branch of the profession. I intervene only because I have had some 20 years' experience in Islington and elsewhere of serving as a poor man's lawyer, and trying in that capacity to help some of the people who will derive immense benefit from this Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said that there might he a flood of litigation as a result of this Bill, but if there is, that will only go to prove that for many years past a great many poor people have been deprived of the opportunity of access to the courts and of getting redress from grievances, injuries and injustices from which they have been suffering.
  There is no dispute between us in this House about the merits of this Bill. It is cordially welcomed in all parts of the House. It enshrines the principle that the citizen is entitled to legal aid as of right, and not as of charity. It will go a long way to establishing that equality before the law without which there cannot be any real social justice in this country. It has been a crying scandal
  1250
  that for many years past a great many people, because of their poverty, have been deprived of the opportunity either of getting legal advice or of having access to the courts, and as a result have suffered either in ignorance, or in bitterness, innumerable wrongs and hardships.
  We all share the admiration which has been voiced by the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby for the legal institutions and traditions of this country. We are justly proud of them. They are indeed the envy and the admiration of the world. One has only to travel abroad, and have experience of some European systems or indeed of some of the States of the United States, to realise what we owe in this country to our legal institutions and to the fact that we have the advantage of an independent judiciary—independent of the executive—which commands the unquestioned confidence of the population. Incidentally I wonder in what other country today one could point to—
  Mr. Gallacher rose—
  Mr. Fletcher: I would rather continue with my speech. Incidentally, I wonder in what other country today, including Russia, one could find the spectacle of a fearless and searching inquiry into the actions of the Ministers of the Crown being conducted with full confidence and satisfaction by one of His Majesty's judges and two eminent lawyers?
  Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to raise and challenge the House to make comment on something which is sub judice? I submit that he has challenged the House to comment on the workings of the Tribunal which is at present sitting.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I did not gather that the hon. Gentleman was doing that at all.
  Mr. Fletcher: If I may ignore that interruption, I should like to say that this Bill is due to the fact that excellent though our legal institutions are, and I think partly because of their very excellence, they have for a long time past been exposed to the criticism—and rightly so—that they are unduly expensive, and because they are expensive a great many people have been deprived

  1251
  of access to the courts. For many years past litigation has tended to become the privilege of either the very rich or of the very poor, or of those persons who are fortunate enough to have the backing of wealthy corporations, insurance societies, trade unions, or some other similar organisation.
  That has been bad, not only for the people who have suffered in consequence but also for the common law of England. The evolution and development of our common law and our legal institutions depend upon the fact that for generations the law has been concerned with the social and human problems that arise from the daily round of every-day life by all classes of the community. It is very desirable, if our legal institutions are to develop healthily, that legal principles should be continually applied to the changing conditions of our increasingly complex society, and that all kinds of problems should come before the courts for free ventilation and judicial interpretation. It makes our legal system unreal if it becomes remote from the problems of every-day life. I do not want to say too much during this Second Reading Debate, because, as the Attorney-General has said, there are many points which are more appropriate for the Committee stage. I venture to mention a few of them in the hope that my right hon. and learned Friend may have an opportunity of considering them before the Committee stage begins.
  First, may I refer to the limitation imposed in the Bill upon the categories of people who will benefit? I doubt whether it is really necessary to include in the Bill an upper limit of income qualifying those who are eligible to benefit under the Bill. One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is the inadequacy over the last 20 or 30 years of the existing Poor Persons' Procedure. Under those provisions nobody has been entitled to free legal advice and assistance unless his income was less than £2 a week, or, in exceptional circumstances, £4 a week. Those rates were fixed many years ago and were based upon the cost of living and the social conditions then prevailing, but they are completely out of date today, just as are the provisions which limit the maximum wife's maintenance order to £2 per week.
  1252
  The provisions made in the Bill may or may not be adequate in present-day circumstances, but in considering whether they are so, I think it is not irrelevant to remember that many of those who will be engaged in the administration of the Bill whether in private practice or as salaried legal advisers under the scheme, will themselves be within the class of people eligible to benefit under the provisions of the Bill. As cost-of-living rates change, I should hope that we could learn from the experience of the past and make the upper limit of income flexible. I suggest that no limit should be fixed and that, like many other matters contemplated in the Bill, it should be laid down by regulation and capable of change from time to time, subject to an affirmative Resolution by both Houses.
  Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be sensible to deal with the matter in the same way as health and doctors are being dealt with in another connection, so that everybody, no matter who he is, could have free access to solicitors, barristers and the rest of them? Anyone who wanted to engage a solicitor or barrister on his own, should be able to do so, as he can a doctor.
  Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is supporting my argument. According to an estimate recently made by "The Times," at least 12 million people are capable of benefiting from the provisions of the Bill. I am asking that the application of the Bill should not be unalterably fixed by statute but should be left flexible. I am suggesting that the limits should be fixed from time to time by order. It would be going too far to make the provisions of the Bill universal. It is essential that we should have a period of experiment to see what arises after the Bill has been passed into law. I am suggesting that the limits of income should be left elastic and capable of alteration by regulation subject to an affirmative Resolution. We have found that when the provisions of a statute have admittedly become out of date and when there is an overwhelming case for their alteration, it has often been said: "This matter certainly requires legislation, but there is no time for legislation on this matter."
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This is a non-controversial Bill, and I think that the

  1253
  hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) will understand the point which I am raising. If his suggestion were to be adopted it would require a different Financial Resolution from the one which we shall discuss later today. I am not raising this as a point of Order against the hon. Member who is addressing the House, but for the consideration of the House and of the hon. Member himself. I think the Attorney-General will agree that if the suggestion were to be considered, it would require the alteration to which I have referred.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will be the first to appreciate the force of that intervention, as you are a much greater authority than I am as to whether it is in Order upon the Second Reading of a Bill to discuss the ambit of a Financial Resolution which is to be discussed subsequently in Committee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is quite in Order, because the Money Resolution has not yet been before the House in Committee.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was proposing to make the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General might consider the scope of the Financial Resolution in the light of any speeches made during this Debate, before we discuss that Resolution.
  The second point is whether it is really necessary to exclude defamation as one of the causes of action not covered by the Bill. We have heard what the Attorney-General has said about it and one knows the kind of abuse that might arise if there was an unfettered right to bring actions for defamation. I should have thought this a case in which it was essential that the local committees could act as a screen effectively to weed out and remove any possibility of actions for defamation being improperly brought under the terms of the Bill. We should recognise that the reputation of a poor man is just as important as is the reputation of a rich man and that he should receive the same kind of protection.
  Thirdly, may I ask that the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown, when they come to draft the regulations which will govern the conduct of the local committees, should provide for
  1254
  the local committees to be subject to and have the same advantage of privilege which members of the legal profession now have, or rather which they confer upon their clients? One of the great advantages which a person has in taking legal advice is that he does so in conditions of complete professional privilege and secrecy. That privilege is enshrined in our democratic institutions and is widely cherished in any liberal and democratic society. It is essential that people who have their cases referred to local committees for preliminary examination should be able to feel completely sure that the same degree of professional privilege and secrecy obtains and binds the members of the local committees.
  The next point, which seems to me of some importance, arises under Clause 2 (2) of the Bill. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, if an assisted person brings proceedings, the house in which he lives is protected, in the sense that he cannot be called upon either to sell it or to raise money on the security of it, in order to make a contribution for costs. If the assisted person loses, it is open to the court to order him to pay a reasonable sum towards the costs of the successful litigant. We shall no doubt have cases in which an assisted person finds himself involved in litigation with a person who may be just outside the limits of this Measure because his disposable income may be £430 a year instead of £410. We may find that the unassisted person is successful but that he nevertheless has to sell his house or raise money upon the security of the house in order to pay his own costs because of the protection given to the assisted person. I venture to put forward the suggestion that Clause 2 (2) should be so altered as to make it clear, when interpreting What is reasonable in these circumstances, that the court should have regard not only to the means of the assisted person but to the means of his successful opponent in the litigation.
  A further point is that a person proceeding under the Poor Persons' Procedure may be called upon, as legal members of the House will know, to give security for costs or, as an alternative, have his action remitted to a county court. Would the Attorney-General tell us whether similar provisions will apply under the Bill? Is it contemplated

  1255
  that, because they are assisted persons, they can be called upon either to give security for costs which, ex hypothesi, they will not be able to do, or to have to submit to their actions being remitted to a county court? If so, it will considerably affect the administration of the Measure.
  Finally, I invite the Attorney-General to clarify the operation of Clause 6, which makes provision for giving legal advice and says that:
  "Legal advice shall consist of oral advice on legal questions. …"
  I very much hope that this will not be interpreted in such a way as to limit the duty or the right of the person giving the advice merely to oral advice. Those of us who sit as a poor man's lawyer and give advice when people cannot afford to pay for legal help know from experience that the people who come to us for advice are very frequently in need, not merely of oral advice, but of assistance in writing a letter. Over and over again, we find that a person, not necessarily illiterate but who is unlettered and unskilled in the art of writing a letter or composing the type of letter necessary to express his complaint and ensure that someone who has done him an injury or a wrong should rectify it, requires a letter to be written for him if his grievance is to be remedied. His need is for a letter which will indicate to the person who has committed the injury that he has someone behind him who has taken an interest in the case and is expressing his claim in professional terms which the applicant cannot be expected to know.
  There is an enormous field between the case, on the one hand, of the man needing merely oral advice, i.e., telling a man what are his rights or, perhaps, that he has no rights; and, on the other hand, the relatively few cases in which an applicant may be advised to embark on litigation. Between these two examples there will be a very large number of cases in which a letter—or, perhaps, two or more letters—will have to be written. If, as we hope, the Bill is to have the effect of assisting these people to obtain justice, it is very desirable that Clause 6 should not be restricted. I feel sure that subject to these and other improvements which can
  1256
  be made in Committee, we all wish the Bill a speedy and successful passage into law.
  5.49 p.m.
  Brigadier Medlicott: There must have been moments during the Debate when, to lay Members of the House, the Chamber presented a depressing, if not sinister, appearance, for at times at least 75 per cent. of the Members in the Chamber were practising members of one or other branches of the legal profession. Indeed, already there have been rumbles of that semi-humorous criticism which is directed from time to time against the legal profession. In one way, however, the legal profession has something in common with this House. We are both liable to be criticised and sometimes abused in the aggregate, but our constituents or our clients, as the case may be, do seem to turn to us when they are in difficulties. When considered against the general difficulties of our economic situation and the serious problems of the day, it may seem that the Bill is, perhaps, not vitally urgent, but as it is agreed that the efficient working of our system of justice is an essential element in the working of democracy it can be truly said that the time we spend upon the Bill today will certainly not be wasted.
  Those of us who view with caution any extension of the area of State expenditure must be consistent, and must scrutinise with equal care any expenditure which is proposed upon a matter in which we ourselves happen to be interested and which we might be inclined to favour. It is, therefore, with a little concern that we find that the annual expenditure under the Bill may be as much as £4,370,000, of which the Exchequer will have to bear £2,370,000. There is no necessary parallel between these proposals and those embodied, in the National Health Service, but we have already seen in that direction that estimates are liable to be exceeded and we must be prepared for the possibility that these estimates of the cost of the legal aid scheme may be too low. We shall in any case have to face an additional charge year by year upon the national Exchequer of nearly £2½ million. These are substantial figures, which cannot lightly be embarked upon. I feel, however, that in all the circumstances

  1257
  this is an expenditure which is justified by the needs of the day.
  It need not be assumed that it is always necessarily a good thing for a person to be allowed to go to law, either at his own or at someone else's expense. Most solicitors will agree that such a person as a happy litigant is rarely met with. The unsuccessful litigant, of course, is never happy. Those who are successful rarely get as much as they hoped for, and the cost is always greater than they anticipated. Nevertheless, if our judical and legal system is to be complete, a way must be found of enabling all sections of the community to have access to the courts. The Attorney-General has rightly said that in the past it has been only too true that full access to the courts has been possible only for people of fairly substantial means. We are glad that the steps contemplated by this Bill are now being taken to improve that position.
  There will be general gratification and, perhaps, a little surprise, that the Bill does not contain the remotest suggestion that the Government intend, even in the distant future, to set up a nationalised legal profession. It is reassuring to find that the Government, apparently, is aware of the grave dangers which would be involved if they destroyed the independence of a profession whose services may in the future be more and more required to enable the private citizen to fight his battles against the State.
  Although there is a clear need for the Bill, I am not altogether satisfied that a vast amount of injustice is being suffered because people are not always able to go into court. I do not deny that some injustice does exist, but it would be a mistake to exaggerate its volume. In a recent case a litigant fought an action all the way up to the Court of Appeal concerning the use of a dustbin. Some important question of principle may have been involved. Most practising lawyers know that questions of real principle can arise over even the smallest items, but they know, too, that very often cases are taken to court out of what I can only describe as "pure cussedness." The committees which will be given the task of considering applications for permission to come within the scheme will have laid before them some very weird and wonderful situations and if from time to time in the proper exercise of their discretion they
  1258
  can discourage some types of people from going to law, they will be doing a very good turn for the Judges and for the legal profession generally.
  The two further points which I want to make are both points of criticism. They are, however, important and I doubt whether they can be properly or fully dealt with on Committee stage alone. The first point concerns the payment of costs to solicitors and counsel engaged in the scheme. Most hon. Members will know which are the practicing lawyers in the House and in this respect I speak on a subject in which I have a very direct vested interest. Having said that, I am sure the House will bear with me if I refer to this question of remuneration for lawyers engaged upon the scheme.
  The Rushcliffe Committee recommended, and the Government have accepted, the suggestion that remuneration should be limited to 85 per cent. of the taxed fees or profit costs. There is an exception in the case of county court work, but the bulk of the work will be subject to this deduction of 15 per cent. I cannot agree that this deduction is justified, nor has any reason at all been given as to why it should be imposed. It was admitted in the statements of the Rushcliffe Committee—based, presumably upon careful and detailed evidence—that 70 per cent. of the fees payable to solicitors are absorbed in overhead expenses, leaving 30 per cent. by way of profit or, if I may use the term, by way of earnings. The solicitor himself is thus normally left with only 30 per cent. of the total costs received from the client, but it is proposed under this scheme that he should receive a sum equivalent to only half that amount for himself.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. and gallant Member agree that from the solicitor's point of view it is a better proposition to have 85 per cent. of his fee guaranteed by the State than to claim the full fee, the recovery of which is frequently most problematical?
  Brigadier Medlicott: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for that intervention, because I think it is generally understood that that is perhaps the main reason why the deduction is suggested. But I am not altogether convinced that such a request ought to be made to the profession merely because

  1259
  under some circumstances lawyers, perhaps out of the kindness of their hearts or for other reasons, do not receive the full 100 per cent. which Parliament originally laid down as a just reward for their services. That fact should not be used against them in asking them now to accept permanently and over a very wide range of work what is virtually a cut of 15 per cent. I do not want to labour the point, but the profession is entitled to say in its own defence that its general rate of remuneration is not excessive, and as yet I have not been satisfied by anything which has been said in this Debate that there is any real reason why the work done under this particular scheme should be made the subject of this quite substantial reduction in remuneration.
  The other point of criticism I wish to make is clearly one of greater importance from the public point of view. I think the Bill places a little too much emphasis on litigation as compared with conciliation or negotiation. In this matter I am glad to be able to follow the comments made by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) arising from his very considerable experience of poor man's lawyer work. There is a wellknown poor man's lawyer centre in London which this week has given figures to one of the professional journals on this point.
  It is stated that out of the enormous number of matters raised by people who consult that centre only about seven per cent. result in litigation; possibly another seven per cent. would be suitable for litigation but the parties concerned decide not to go on; and of the remaining 86 per cent., one-half can be satisfied by oral evidence alone and the other half need assistance by way of correspondence, negotiations and similar work. I suggest that on this point the Bill is defective and I hope that by amending Clause 6 this defect might be overcome. In case it might be thought that I am putting purely the professional point of view on this subject, I will quote from a paragraph which appeared in the "Tribune" of 3rd December, where this very matter is mentioned. It was pointed out:
  "There appears to be no provision for the enormous field of legal activity lying between oral advice and actual litigation."
  1260
  The "Tribune" went on to emphasise that a simple solution would be
  "To increase the functions of legal advice centres to include writing letters and negotiating up to the point where litigation is unavoidable."
  I would also put it in another way and say that if the negotiations that can be carried on in these legal advice centres are conducted in the right spirit there is no reason why litigation could not be avoided altogether in a great number of cases.
  I think, quite apart from the evidence we have had in the Debate and the evidence I have quoted from "Tribune," it will be obvious to those who have experience of working at poor man's lawyer's centres throughout the country that in the vast majority of cases, or at least in a very high percentage of cases, it would be almost worse than useless merely to give the applicant oral advice. One of the curious features of the present day and perhaps of earlier days is that a large proportion of the population appear to be either unable or at least unwilling to write letters upon those matters which may come within the scope of this Bill. We know from personal experience that there is one exception to that rule; the population as a whole are fully capable of writing letters to their members of Parliament in unlimited quantities.
  But there are other types of letter which are not written, though they ought to be written. I refer to such matters as disputes between relatives over the contents of a will—or arising out of the absence of a will—differences arising out of hire-purchase agreements and in regard to problems of debtor and creditor generally and of course the ever-present disputes between landlord and tenant. A great number of these problems are not necessarily problems which lead to litigation but because of the failure of people to write the proper letter at the time when they should, many of these situations drift into a hopeless muddle. It is here that the work of the legal advice centre can be most valuable but it should not be limited, as it is proposed to limit it at the moment, merely to giving oral advice. I doubt, however, whether the mere extension of the powers of legal advice centres will be sufficient to meet the point, as it

  1261
  is not certain that the salaried solicitor will himself be able to cope with all the situations which may arise, but that is probably much more of a committee point.
  I wish to mention only two other points. Already we have provided in the criminal law for the troublesome individual known as the habitual criminal. Solicitors will know that there is a type met with in civil matters who can only be described as an habitual litigant. We shall have to rely very largely on the area and local committees to see that the wrong kind of case is not brought before the courts. Secondly, if there is to be that considerable increase in litigation which this Bill may possibly facilitate, there will have to be a speeding-up in the procedure of the courts, and particularly some shortening of the time taken up in getting pleadings in order and by other matters of a technical nature.
  Although this Bill will probably not achieve all that its sponsors hope, as is the case with so many Bills, it will be welcomed not only by the legal profession, but by all who have had experience of social welfare work. Although there are points on which the Bill can probably be improved and strengthened, we can say with confidence that it provides a framework within which in due time there may be erected a valuable, and perhaps imposing, structure which will add greatly to the general scheme of our already considerable social welfare legislation.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) paying tribute to the admirable work done by voluntary organisations in assisting the administration of justice in times past. This Bill will tend to make much of their work unnecessary in future and, if two suggestions which I offer to the House are adopted, it will go a little further towards making such organisations completely unnecessary.
  This Bill as it stands will go a long way towards eliminating and making untrue the old gibe that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. That gibe was completely true before the beneficent work of such bodies as the Cambridge University Settlement and
  1262
  Toynbee Hall. Then it had two sinister meanings. One was that our substantive law favoured the rich, and that was then true. It was indeed true that the law of property, the law of contract, of torts and, indeed, our criminal law, favoured the rich. The second sinister meaning was that our procedural law favoured the rich. That is still true and is one of the defects in our system which this Bill aims at remedying.
  The right hon. and learned Member referred to the fact that in this country all citizens are equal in the eye of the law. Happily that is true under our system and this is one of those marks which differentiates our system from systems in other countries. Our law is made up of the common law, the principles of equity and statutes, the theory of all three being the same, that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law. Unhappily, that does not work out in practice. Modern statutes have done much to tend to make it true and the modern law of property, of contracts, of torts and criminal law have tended to eliminate that prejudicial difference. One might go further and say that in these days the tendency is, perhaps, a little the other way. Examples of that are the Factory Acts, Workmen's Compensation Acts, Public Health Acts and others that readily spring to mind. But that statutory tendency is right and today we find that, although in theory all citizens are equal in the eye of the law, in practice that is not so because of the expense of litigation.
  It is tragically true that the cost of getting justice is too great. The very rich, or the very poor, can get justice, but the class which finds it difficult to get justice and the class which is not assisted by this Bill, is the middle class. I think that is one of the blemishes in this otherwise admirable Bill. It does not go far enough and does not relate itself to today's cost of living. It does not relate itself to those who, at current prices, are poor and cannot face litigation without grave danger of ruin, or without foolhardy recklessness and who, very often, therefore, suffer and, even after this Bill, if it passes in its present form, comes into law will rather suffer injustice than embark on the perilous sea of litigation, which may mean complete ruin for them.
  How is this blemish to be removed? It can be removed in one of two ways,

  1263
  either by reducing the cost of litigation, or by raising or abolishing the financial limits contained in Clause 2. Can we reduce the cost of litigation? I do not think so. That cost arises under three heads. First, there are the solicitors' costs, which are subject to taxation by the Taxing Master, and which, in my view, are not excessive today. Secondly, there are counsel's fees, which are largely under the control of the litigant himself. He can choose some fashionable and expensive counsel, or he can choose some equally efficient counsel who is not so fashionable and whose fees are not so great. The third heading of the cost of litigation is court fees, which are not heavy. I do not think that the cost of litigation can be reduced under any of these heads. I do not think that is the answer to the problem which confronts us in this Bill.
  The other way, which is the one adopted in this Bill, is to give free or assisted legal aid to those who need it. It should be remembered that the legal profession has a splendid record in this matter. It is perhaps not generally as widely recognised or appreciated as it should be. It is a fact that for many years members of the legal profession have regarded it as a duty, as a debt of honour, to take a certain number of poor persons' cases every year. The taking of such work often excludes other work. It is difficult to estimate the duration of such cases. They may take many days; they may involve an appeal; they may use up a great deal of time and effort. But this philanthropic work has been done by both branches of the legal profession, with credit to themselves and utility to the community for a great many years. Indeed, the devoted band of social workers and lawyers in places like Toynbee Hall, where, I am creditably informed, the Prime Minister worked at one time, have done a great social service to the community. I think this is the time to mention that and to recognise it.
  If this Bill is passed it will do much to make unnecessary that type of voluntary and philanthropic work. That is why I support it, but I venture to make two criticisms of the Bill, one relating to the financial conditions of legal aid, and the other to legal advice in criminal matters. As to financial conditions of legal aid, Clause 2 limits such aid to
  1264
  persons whose disposable income does not exceed £420 a year. The Clause then continues with a proviso, which I suggest is a very prejudicial one:
  "Provided that a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than five hundred pounds and it appears that he can afford to proceed without legal aid."
  These limitations are unsound and wrong. The test should be left to the committee which will administer the Measure, or each case should be judged on its merits.
  Can it be said that a man with £420 a year, which is roughly £8 1s. 0d. a week, should be entitled to legal aid, as he will be under the Bill, while a man with £430, which is only £8 5s. 0d. a week, should not be entitled to legal aid. This seems to me to be an arbitrary and unfair distinction between two men of the lower middle class, who cannot be expected to incur the perils of litigation without aid. The proviso means that a man who has saved money is penalised as against a man who has not saved money. The proviso should be deleted.
  To sum up this aspect of the matter, I support my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) in saying that this matter of administration should be dealt with by regulation, as regulations can more easily be altered than can legislation, according to the changes in the cost of living from time to time. From information which has reached me, such bodies as the Incorporated Cambridge University Settlement, a representative body with members of great experience, favour the view which I have ventured to put forward.
  I wish to say a word about legal advice in criminal matters. There is a striking anomaly in this respect. Part I of the Bill, which deals with civil proceedings, provides in Clauses 1 to 5 that legal aid may be given, and in Clause 6 that legal advice may be given in civil proceedings. Part II of the Bill, which deals with criminal proceedings, provides by Clauses 15 to 18 that legal aid may be given, but there is no provision anywhere in the Bill for legal advice to be given in criminal matters. Why not? Is a man's life and liberty of less consequence than his civil contracts or his torts? The idea seems to me to be foreign to justice. Advice is just as important in a criminal charge as in a civil matter—indeed it is often more so. The accused person may be in

  1265
  gaol, he may be an ignorant person, he may be weak-minded or insane. The police who make the charge will be free to get such advice as they like, and indeed the best advice in the land, while the unfortunate accused is not, under the Bill, assisted to get any legal advice whatever.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): It seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend is not on a good point here. In a criminal case, legal aid will be available from the very beginning. The distinction on the civil side between aid and advice surely does not exist on the criminal side? There is in the Bill provision for anyone who is accused of a crime to obtain all the advice which is necessary.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not think that that is the answer to the point which I was making. It was that there is a great disparity between the two parts of the Bill. In civil proceedings a person is entitled to legal advice as well as legal aid. In criminal proceedings a person is entitled under the Bill to legal aid only, and is not entitled to have legal advice. There is no provision for the latter.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely if a certificate for legal aid is given early enough in the criminal proceedings, any lawyer who accepts the task of giving that legal aid will give advice in the course of it?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: It will be his duty to do so.
  The Attorney-General: I wonder if I can help my hon. and learned Friend. As I understand the matter, Clause 6 provides that legal aid should be available on legal questions. I understand that to cover all legal questions. We have not expressly contemplated that legal advice should be available in order to show people how they may commit criminal offences without being caught in the criminal courts. That is not the purpose of the Bill. But legal advice on any legal matter would be included under Clause 6. Criminal matters do not arise until there are criminal proceedings in regard to them, and legal aid will be available.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: And that includes advice.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I would like to know why it is considered necessary to
  1266
  put in Part I an express provision that in civil proceedings a litigant may get advice, while in Part II, which relates to criminal proceedings, there is no reference to advice?
  The Attorney-General: if my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to intervene again, I would say that I think he is mistaken on the point. Part I does not deal with advice in civil proceedings but with legal aid in civil proceedings and with legal advice, that is, advice in regard to any matter. Criminal matters do not arise, as a rule, until after a crime has been committed.
  Mr. Hughes: That is precisely my point. Part I provides for two things, advice and aid. Part II provides for aid only; it does not provide for advice. Does not the Attorney-General agree that in a criminal case it may be and indeed often is, necessary for an accused person to be advised as to the nature of the offence and as to the nature of his defence and various matters as to whether his plea should be "guilty" or "not guilty"? Would that come under the heading of advice as distinct from aid?
  The Attorney-General: Certainly. If my hon. and learned Friend is acting under the scheme, and is called upon to advise his client to plead guilty, he will certainly be entitled to do so. That is part of the provisions for legal aid under Part II of the Bill.
  Mr. Hughes: Very well. This is a very interesting discussion which I shall consider when I see it in HANSARD. It will be open to me, no doubt, to raise the matter on the Committee stage, if I happen to be a Member of the Committee.
  There is another matter touching upon the one to which I have been referring, namely, that an accused person should be entitled to advice, in a case in which he has pleaded guilty, as to the circumstances in mitigation of sentence. It seems to me that there is no provision in the Bill to cover that. I have had a communication from an association of solicitors in London who are considering this Bill. They put this point, which seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate criticism of an otherwise good Bill:
  "One of the most important matters to applicants"—

  1267
  that is, applicants for legal aid—
  "… is the question of legal aid on mitigation of sentence, in other words on pleas of guilty. The Home Office contend that it is already provided for in the Poor Prisoners Defence Act, 1930, and Mr. Justice Humphreys remarked (see Clause 135, page 25, of the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee) that it should be more frequently used. The fact remained that it is not at all clear in the old Act that such a power exists. I will guarantee that not one applicant out of a hundred knows that it is so, I have never heard a magistrate offer it nor have I heard an applicant ask for it as they always think they have to have a defence. There is no earthly reason why a Clause should not be added to the Bill…"
  I hope that point will be cleared up. That seems to me to be a matter of principle rather than a Committee matter, and one which should be raised on Second Reading. Otherwise, I think that the Bill is a good Bill, and it gives me great pleasure to support it.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Braddock: I am very pleased with the recommendations in this Bill. I believe that it is a means of commencing to deal with some of the very grave injustices that there have been in regard to legal actions because of the inability of people to pay. I hope that this Bill is the forerunner of other Bills that will deal with other sections of the law where there are also grave injustices.
  The Attorney-General mentioned that there was no other way of dealing with cases that required free legal aid except through the poor man's solicitor departments. That is not quite right, because in Liverpool about 18 months ago, we appreciated the fact that there was need for some other type of legal advice for people who were unable to pay. The local authority itself, after discussing the matter with the magistrates, who had met cases of this sort in the courts, decided to allocate the sum of £500 to the Personal Service Society for the purpose of paying a solicitor on an agreement through the Law Society in Liverpool.
  That agreement was made, and continues to operate at the moment. The matter came to light because, in respect of many cases in the courts, it was found that one side was able to obtain a solicitor, and pay him, and the other person was unable, from the financial point
  1268
  of view, to obtain a solicitor. Magistrates, feeling the position rather keenly, were adjourning cases so that the second party might obtain legal advice. The present position has obtained in Liverpool for about 18 months and we are now awaiting a progress report. So far as I know, it is working very well indeed, and I think the result, when the report appears, will be rather gratifying and of particular interest.
  A point about which I am rather concerned, and to which I hope some attention will be paid, is the length of time it is anticipated that the committees will take to decide whether a person is entitled to receive assistance free, or even on a basis of assessment. In many cases involving the poorer sections of the community people cannot afford to wait a great length of time for a case to be decided. I consider that there should be something in the Bill which lays down a definite maximum period in which to decide whether a person is to be granted free legal advice, or advice at a reduced fee. Many of these cases are cases of matrimonial difficulties, or bastardy cases, where, unless some decision is taken fairly soon, the person loses a certain amount of money. I consider it a matter of extreme importance that when a committee has to decide, it will not take the considerable length of time that the legal profession generally takes to make decisions in relation to these things.
  Another type of case to which I wish to refer is that of libel or defamation of character, where, on the one hand, the person who takes action may be in a position to pay and not need to make any application for assistance, and, on the other hand, the person who is accused may be completely unable to obtain legal advice to defend the action. That is a matter which ought to be looked into, and in a case of that sort the right to make application for free advice or reduced legal charges should be considered. It is extremely important, because we are excluding completely from the right of obtaining legal advice—unless they can pay for it—persons who may be accused. They may be unable to pay any of the costs or even obtain any sort of legal advice at all.
  I am pleased that the question of assessment is being handed over to the National Assistance Board. I believe

  1269
  that that organisation is one whose activities should not be confined merely to people who are completely destitute, or who require assistance in regard to additions to the amount they can obtain for assistance. If matters of this sort are referred to them, the Board will be put on a much higher plane in relation to the community as a whole than if they are allowed only to deal with matters in relation to extra amounts for people who find themselves in difficulties.
  There is also the question of who will have the right to advise a person that he may be entitled to legal assistance at a reduced price. In Liverpool, if the magistrates commencing a case find that one side has a solicitor and the other has not, and the magistrates themselves think it is not right to proceed unless solicitors are employed on both sides, they can say that that person ought to be entitled to consideration for the free service. Can that right still be left to the magistrates under this Bill? Can they send a recommendation to the committee, or give the right to the person who is before them to take a recommendation to the committee, to the effect that the magistrates who have commenced to deal with a case are adjourning it because they feel that, there being a solicitor on one side, the other person ought also to be legally represented? Those are matters which ought to be considered, and might be included in the Bill by Amendment in the course of the Committee stage.
  I have referred to these matters mainly because they relate to the poorer section of the community who, up to now, have found themselves in difficulties on many occasions, because they have been unable to pay, even unable to consider going to a solicitor, when some action was taken against them, or when they found themselves in some difficulty requiring advice from a solicitor.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Basil Nield: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) because I think it would be unfortunate if only Members of the legal profession were to give their views to the House upon this important matter. She has made several most interesting suggestions which I am sure will be considered.
  1270
  Underlying the recommendations of the Committee set up under the chairmanship of Lord Rushcliffe are two matters of principle, similar, but quite distinct, which, in my view, will attract general approval. The first is that lack of means should not be permitted to prevent any person from prosecuting a just civil claim, or reasonably resisting a claim, in the King's courts. The second is that poor persons charged with criminal offences should, wherever possible, be afforded legal assistance so that their case may be properly presented to the court.
  The Rushcliffe Committee, to whose work I should like to add my own tribute, proposed detailed means for bringing these two principles into operation. Those proposals, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, are largely accepted by the Government and this Bill seeks to provide a scheme wherein machinery may be set up to put them into effect. Part I of the Bill deals with legal aid in civil proceedings, and Part II deals with legal aid in criminal proceedings. I wish, first of all to say a word as to legal aid in civil proceedings. As it appears to me, under this Measure a person is to be admitted to legal aid if two conditions are satisfied, namely, if he shows that he has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to the proceedings, and if he goes on to show—although logically this should come first—that his means are insufficient to meet fully, or at all, the expenses of legal assistance and representation.
  Those of us who have practised the law for some time know that there is, unfortunately, a considerable amount of vexatious or frivolous litigation. It seems, therefore, quite right to insist that someone shall decide whether there is at any rate the appearance of merit in a case before legal assistance is granted. On that point, therefore, I would say that those who have to decide this first point, whether there is sufficient merit in the case to receive aid, must on no account seek to try the case in advance. It would no doubt be quite sufficient to say whether there is a prima facie case for the granting of this assistance. Who is it then who has to decide that extremely important, and it may be, difficult question?
  When I said that this Bill provided a scheme wherein machinery might be set up, I chose my words rather carefully,

  1271
  because it seems to me right to say that we are here really delegating to the Law Society, with the assistance of the General Council of the Bar, the task of producing the scheme and, in effect, of putting it into effect. This is obviously a weighty task and responsibility, and it shows considerable confidence in the profession. It appears from the White Paper that area committees are to be established in some 12 areas, and they in turn are to set up local committees which, we are told, would number 110. Under the local committees are to be what are known as certifying committees whose task would be to decide this question of whether there is merit in the litigation. It does seem to me that the committee has a difficult and delicate task, but I feel quite certain it is one which members of the legal profession will undertake in a public-spirited manner, and that they will do their best in that direction.
  I desire to say a word upon the other condition to be satisfied before aid is granted, and that is the condition as to the means of the applicant. It has already been pointed out that this task of determining whether an applicant is within the means limit, is to be undertaken by the National Assistance Board. That was one of the points commented upon by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool. I desire to say a few words about it. An investigation into means is always difficult. It is the experience of hon. Members that there are many who resent a scrutiny into their private affairs, but I am bound to say that where public monies are to be spent it seems right in the interests of everyone that only those who are of limited means should be included. Therefore, inquiry is necessary.
  The question is: who is best able to undertake that inquiry? I wish to put out a suggestion for consideration during this discussion. I wish to submit—though one must wait to hear all the arguments—that this task might also rest with the area committees or the local committees. One knows from former experience, particularly in matrimonial causes where committees are set up, that they have undertaken the investigation of means. Is it right, or is it not, to say that there are advantages attaching to the committee or sub-committee undertaking this
  1272
  inquiry as well? I suggest that there are some advantages.
  First, it might avoid two such inquiries, or inquiries by two bodies. It might also be that if, as we hope, these local committees establish sympathetic relationships with their applicants, that the applicants would be more ready to allow them to inquire into this question of means. It might also be said that we would be more likely to get uniformity of treatment within any particular area. I do not come to any final conclusion on this matter. I hope that hon. Members may think it worth while to consider that point.
  Before I leave Part I which deals with legal aid in civil proceedings, I wish to say something about those categories of proceedings which are excluded. This is a matter upon which perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department might feel inclined to make some comment when he replies to the Debate. When the Attorney-General opened this Debate, he pointed to the second part of the First Schedule, to those categories of proceedings in which aid is excluded. My first observation—and this is not the specific point—is that one wonders whether it is right, so long as these causes of action remain recognised by law, to exclude them, however much perhaps many judges may disapprove of some of them. I have in mind particularly breach of promise of marriage. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained his view on that.
  The point I want to make is that the Bill, in the First Schedule, makes use of this expression:
  "Proceedings wholly or partly in respect of—(a) defamation."
  Is it considered right that the words "or partly" should remain? I will give an example from an experience of mine only two or three weeks ago. There was an action in which an employed person sued her employers on three grounds—first, that she had been slandered; second, that she had been trespassed against by being falsely imprisoned; and third, that she had been wrongfully dismissed. If this Schedule is not altered, as I understand it, with those three causes of action, as it is partly in respect of defamation, she could not

  1273
  have been financially assisted, whatever her means were. Perhaps that point is worthy of consideration.
  I pass to Part II, which deals with legal aid in criminal proceedings. Here there is no great alteration of the existing state of things, but I certainly welcome two major improvements. The first is that if there is doubt whether a man's means justify aid, then that doubt shall be resolved in his favour, that is, in favour of granting the aid. The second point is that application for legal aid may be made by post, and so on, in order that it may be granted well ahead of the date of trial, so that proper preparation may be made. I am bound to say—and I speak not without some experience in these matters—that I would always advocate the granting of legal aid in criminal cases wherever it is possible to do so. It is necessary in the interest of justice, in the interest of the accused and in the interest of the court which has to determine the various matters which arise.
  Finally, there is one point upon this part of the Bill on which perhaps the hon. Gentleman might think it right to say a few words in his reply. When one is considering the granting of free legal aid to someone accused of a crime, it is immensely important to consider also the granting of proper arrangements to enable him to call witnesses in his defence. Of course, one knows that such arrangements exist. I have in mind those cases, which are by no means rare, of a capital charge where maybe an answer of insanity is advanced, and where it is only just and right that the accused should have available expert medical testimony for the purposes of his trial. I ask whether the Government are satisfied that under existing arrangements there are proper facilities for the calling of expert witnesses in such circumstances.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any doubt about that and, if so, why?
  Mr. Nield: I have some doubt in this direction. The discretion which is vested sometimes in the clerk of the court as to taxing costs in respect of expert witnesses may be so exercised either as to allow one witness and no more, or to allow a fee which is regarded as inadequate. Thereafter, of course, witnesses may be unwilling to come, because they
  1274
  realise the inadequacy of such taxation. I was about to say that if the legal profession is able to set up and to operate the machinery for giving effect to the purposes contemplated in this Measure, then a great service will have been done to the community and to the administration of justice.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: As one who, as a trade union official, has had much to do with getting assistance for persons who have been injured and needed help, I welcome this Bill. I welcome it because those who have suffered most under our economic system will, under this proposal, at last have an opportunity to assert their rights and their independence. It is a welcome gesture to individualism. Like other hon. Members, I am not altogether satisfied with the allowances proposed or the limit of disposable income. The Attorney-General has said that this is an experimental Measure, that it is not the last and that he hopes to see further improvements.
  I would, however, join with those of my hon. Friends who have suggested that these limits should not be included in the statute but that they should be administrative limits. I give an example. In the case of children, there are differential rates according to ages. I suggest that in modern housing conditions the variation in the fares that men have to pay when travelling between home and work is so great that there is a case for recognising the difference and allowing for it as we allow for children. It may be that one person pays four or five shillings a week; another may have to pay 10s. a week or more.
  I am asking for guidance. I may be suspicious or I may be ignorant, but in Clause 4 there is a reference to rent, taxes, and interest on loans. Is it correct to assume that a man who is making payments to a building society will get relief? If so, how will that relief be applied? I should like to know whether the whole of his payment of principal and interest will be regarded as rent, because that combined payment may amount to as much as £76 a year. I should like to be enlightened on that point.
  There are to be 110 local committees. As I understand the scheme, they are to

  1275
  cover the whole country; therefore each committee will be responsible for a large area. I should like to know how the committees will come to the speedy assistance of those who need advice and aid. A person may be seriously injured or killed on the road. The dependants may be a long way from the office of the local committee. Those with experience of this type of accident know that it is essential to be on the scene of the accident as quickly as possible, because sometimes the evidence disappears. Also, the inquest may be held within a couple of days. How will the person seeking assistance get to the office of the local committee, and how will that committee come to the assistance of a person in urgent need? Is the local committee to hold an inquiry, to try the case, before assistance can be given?
  My experience of this type of case is that, invariably, one has to get a solicitor quickly, and even arrange it by telephone, so that he will act quickly in the interest of the dependants when the inquest is held, which may be within a couple of days. It may be that the dependants, the persons entitled to relief, have to travel some distance to the office of the local committee. They may have to travel there many times. Indeed, they may have to travel several times to see the solicitor who is helping them. Do they pay their own fares, or how is that expenditure to be met? It may also be that medical or specialist's opinion will be needed. Will that expense fall upon the persons seeking relief under this scheme; or must they provide their own doctor or specialist as the case may be?
  The trade unions of this country have done much though not exclusively—other organisations have helped—in this matter. Their usual procedure is to get help quickly, especially in cases of accident. Assuming that one of these organisations, appreciating the urgency of the case, employs a solicitor, will the answer be that the person concerned cannot seek relief under this Bill, or is there going to be, as I thought the Attorney-General hinted, some method of co-operation between these unions and service organisations and the local committee? I realise that these points need consideration, and I hope that, in Committee, attention will be given to them.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: One or two points have been mentioned in this Debate with which I should like to deal shortly. First, I should be very sorry if any criminal, for whom both this House and the law usually have a very tender regard, were under the misapprehension that he was not entitled to the advice provided through the Bill. Indeed, one of the aspects of this Bill which leaves nothing to be desired, is where it provides for legal aid in criminal cases. Clause 6 makes it perfectly clear that everyone is entitled to advice on all legal questions. Whether a potential criminal is likely to go to a solicitor for advice whether he ought to commit a certain crime or has committed a crime, I do not know. But it is perfectly clear that once it is discovered that there has been the commission of a crime, and that proceedings have been begun, then the criminal, under Part II of the Bill, is entitled to what is termed "legal aid." The connotation of that phrase clearly includes the advice which his legal advisers will give him regarding the offence with which the "assisted person" is being charged.
  The second point to which I wish to refer is the one mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) with regard to expert witnesses. I am speaking now from personal experience. He referred to a case in which there was a capital charge, and in which it was necessary to have some medical testimony on behalf of the accused. I was recently engaged on the side of the defence in a case of that kind in which the fullest facilities were afforded to the accused in that respect. In fact, several medical men were engaged on behalf of the accused lady. They gave evidence at the trial, and their evidence was instrumental in bringing about what I thought was a very proper and just result. But that is not the only case where it applies.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman is himself a recorder, and I am sure he will agree that, even under the present system, in cases where legal aid is granted although it is usually in respect of counsel only, there may be a case—and such a case has come within my own jurisdiction—where it would be proper in all the circumstances to include in the grant the services of a solicitor. I can tell him

  1277
  that I made such a grant on one occasion recently. The result was that a solicitor was appointed, and there was an array of, I think, some seven or eight witnesses on behalf of the accused of whom the solicitor took proofs and everything necessary of an evidential nature was done on behalf of the accused. Therefore, on those particular matters I do not think there is any doubt. I do not think that on questions like aid in criminal or civil cases, on topics such as vexatious litigation and the establishment of a certifying committee, there is any disagreement in the House at all. There are, of course, other aspects of the Bill about which something must be said: they are matters of principle. It is not merely a question for discussion on Committee; it is a much broader and larger matter of principle than should be left to the Committee stage.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in presenting this Bill to the House, used his descriptive brush with a deft and experienced hand. He brought out the features of the Bill in the most attractive light. I would like to say what I am sure the House would wish me to say, that we appreciate his effort and attendance having regard to his very heavy commitments elsewhere. The House is under a very heavy debt to him for being here and for taking charge of this Bill. Then we had the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) who followed him and gave us his usual lucid exposition on this important legal matter. He did not add much to what my right hon. and learned Friend had said except that he gave us the benefit of his counsel and the sanctity of his blessing.
  No one can doubt that the reform envisaged in this Bill is long overdue; it is very necessary, and it is heartily welcomed by everybody. Of course, both parties, as the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby knows—and, I think, mentioned—have been very active in canvassing this particular matter. The Labour party and the Tory party have investigated the subject and have published their views.
  That brings me to the first point of principle, which is whether there should be in this Bill what is termed a fixed financial limit. I am bound to say at the very outset that the presence of a fixed
  1278
  limit in this Bill is absolutely contrary to the policy of the Labour Party on this subject, a policy which is very clearly set out in the Report of the Party in 1944 and which appears on page 215 of that Report. After having gone into the matter very carefully and very fully they said there was:
  "no justification for the retention of the financial limits set out in Order 16, Rule 23—"
  —that is the Poor Persons' Rules—
  "of the Rules of the Supreme Court for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is or is not to be regarded as a poor person."
  They go on to say:
  "The test to be applied, it is submitted, is his available means in relation to the approximate cost to him of the particular proceedings in which he may be concerned. A person may have sufficient means to take or defend proceedings in the County Court, but he may have wholly insufficient means to enable him to take or defend proceedings in the High Court."
  The Report said it was the policy of the Labour Party to abolish all financial limits. With respect, that is the view I desire to put forward in relation to this principle—that the Government ought to look at this matter again and see whether this fixed limit is in fact either just or necessary.
  On the other hand, the Tory Party a year later published their report, and if I may say so with respect, if the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby will look at it—it is entitled "Looking Ahead" which is something like "Let Us Face The Future"—he will see that their views about this particular subject are expressed on page 10 of that document, which deals with the administration of justice. There they say that it is essential to have an income limit and the ground upon which they put that case is that unless there is an income limit there would be an absence of uniformity. The extraordinary thing is that finally they express the opinion that
  "any person who applies for assistance should be required to contribute according to his or her means."
  That, of course, is quite different from a fixed limit and, indeed, is a substitute, and, in my view a wise and proper substitute, for having any particular financial limit such as the Bill contains.
  On the question of uniformity and whether that is a sound ground for saying that we must have a fixed limit, I

  1279
  would say only this—and I think the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby will agree with me. If in every case we could predicate that the circumstances were to be the same both in the nature of the case and in the circumstances of the person who is the litigant, it might be possible to get uniformity. As, however, all these cases vary so much in their circumstances I doubt very much whether we could achieve that result either in the financial circumstances of the litigant, or the circumstances of his case, its effects, the time it is going to take, or the complexity of the problems it involves. Therefore, when we come to measure up these cases we find it is absolutely impossible to achieve what is described as uniformity.
  One man whose case is difficult will probably find that he is involved in a large amount of costs. Another man whose case is not so complicated will find that his costs will not be so great. Therefore, when we come to the question of contribution we find we cannot achieve uniformity because, just as a case differs in its effect and its costs, so the contribution he can pay will also differ in regard to his financial capacity. One man will contribute £100 and another man may have to contribute £300, and so on.
  I cannot see, therefore, why this particular aspect of the Bill cannot be met by simply having a system of contribution. That is not an original idea of my own by any means, it is actually being applied in many Continental systems. In my submission that is what the Government ought to consider and apply here. They should say that the financial position of each litigant is the only fair test and that, having studied the financial position of that person, it should then be decided what contribution he is in a position to make. That would meet the case absolutely and there would be no need for a fixed limit at all. It is perfectly clear that such a limit must lead to injustice. I should have thought myself that achieving justice was the very linchpin of any system of legal aid and in my submission, therefore, this idea of a fixed limit should go.
  Let us take the limit contained in the Bill. The £420 class will be all right. The wealthy people will be all right.
  1280
  Those in between are bound to suffer hardships. It is impossible to avoid that. Take, for example, the variety of case which we get. Take a man who has an ailing wife requiring constant treatment. Obviously that man is in a different position from, and requires more money than, the man who has a healthy, active wife. Take the case of a man with a large family, whose wife may be expecting another child, and compare it with the man whose wife has no child at all and is not likely to have one. Those are only two examples of an infinite variety of types of cases we are bound to come across in trying to administer this Bill. That is why I say that the idea that we can have a fixed limit of this kind is absolutely impossible.
  Turning to the question of deciding what a man has to pay we come to what is called disposable income and capital. We have to see whether a man will actually receive the aid this Bill purports he is to have. First of all, he has to contribute on the basis of half his income above £156 per annum and also the whole of his capital assets above £75. The Attorney-General will see in paragraph 19 of the White Paper an example in which £36 is available, and in that example, if the case goes to the county court, the man will probably get no aid at all because it is very unlikely that the costs will exceed £36. If the case is taken to the High Court, after deducting £75 from the available capital, it is clear that the assisted person will have to pay a very substantial sum towards the costs of the litigation. The result is that he may have to pay such a large sum that he will find himself in the very financial difficulty which this Bill is designed to obviate. That, of course, would not carry out the purpose of a scheme for legal aid at all. It would not encourage people to litigate even perfectly proper cases, because they would be afraid of the uncertainty of the costs and of the results of such cases.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: It should not go out from this House that if a man gets only £420 a year he cannot get any help. Clause 4 provides:
  "References in this Act to a person's disposable income or disposable capital shall be taken as referring to the rate of his income or amount of his capital after making—
  (a) such deductions as may be prescribed in respect of the maintenance of dependants, interest on loans, income tax, rates, rent

  1281
  and other matters for which the person in question must or reasonably may provide . ."
  My hon. and learned Friend referred to a man with a child or a sick wife, and said that in such a case the position would be different. In fact, all those matters are to be taken into consideration. I have seen the view expressed in a legal journal that a man may be earning as much as £1,000 a year and still be entitled to benefit under this Measure. I would not like it to go out in the Press from an hon. and learned Member on this side of the House, that no assistance will be given to such a person.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is why I deliberately referred to the White Paper. I showed from the White Paper that after making certain deductions, there were still certain balances left. What my hon. and learned Friend has just said is obvious, and that is why I did not mention it. The cases are to be found in the White Paper, and I referred specifically to them to avoid going into the details which are all to be found there. I ask the Attorney-General to examine this matter again. Even taking what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) has said, it still means that the assisted party would have a very substantial sum of money to pay.
  There is a further point which constitutes a great flaw in the Bill. It appears to have been overlooked that when a case is brought in the High Court and the defendant can make an affidavit showing that the plaintiff has no visible means to pay the defendant's costs if the plaintiff loses, then the case can be, and will be transferred to the county court. Therefore, there will be a distinction between the well-to-do litigant and the poor litigant, because in every case of that kind which begins in the High Court these proceedings for transfer will be issued and an assisted person will in all likelihood have to have his case tried in the county court instead of in the High Court. I cannot see why there should be that distinction between two classes of litigants, and why the assisted person should be under a disadvantage which a well-to-do person does not have to suffer.
  I ask the Attorney-General to examine also the position of the certifying committees. A certifying committee has to
  1282
  perform a special duty and has to consider whether the proposed assisted person has a reasonable case. Involved in that factor is the consideration of facts, and not only points of law. It is not right that minds which are exclusively technical should be brought to consider those facts. It seems to me that that is a point for a "jury" view, because very often the matter will be decided on the facts rather than upon the law. It is not primarily for such a committee to decide questions of law. It is really for the court to decide those questions. It is for the committee to decide whether, on the facts of the case, it looks reasonable and ought to be allowed to be brought. Therefore, I ask the Attorney General to consider injecting into these committees some consumer or lay representation.
  I would ask the Attorney-General to consider another aspect of the matter. On these committees there will be members of the Bar and solicitors exclusively. Might it not be said that here we have lawyers who are judges in their own cause? They are judging a matter which really concerns them very closely in a professional capacity, and are not only taking into account the personal and lay position of the assisted person. From the point of view of the profession as well, it would be much better if there were some independent voice or lay representation outside the legal profession, which would be entitled to have a say in this matter. I do not say that the independent voices need be in the majority. I cannot understand why, although there is to be no lay representation on the certifying committees, there will be such representation on the advisory committee whose duty will be to advise the Lord Chancellor. I cannot understand why this distinction should be made between the certifying committee and the advisory committee.
  There are various other matters, such as provisions which exclude certain tribunals and certain types of proceedings. I find it very difficult to understand why these tribunals have been excluded. In these days tribunals are very important from a Parliamentary point of view. Much of our legislation involves orders and regulations under such legislation as the National Insurance Act, the Industrial Injuries Act, the National Health Act, National Service, rating appeals and pension appeals. All these are matters of

  1283
  first-class importance, and they all involve tribunals before whom people of very slender means have to go, on issues which are very important to them. I cannot see why there should not be representation in such cases.
  In the matter of arbitration, I cannot understand that at all. Arbitration is increasing greatly. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the West Derby Division said, contracts of insurance constantly include arbitration clauses. Very often the party concerned is a person of very poor means, and there ought to be facilities for legal aid in those cases.
  There are many other matters to which I should like to refer on this Bill, but I do not think it would be right to detain the House longer. These matters can be dealt with in Committee; and there are other hon. Members waiting to take part in the Debate. Therefore, with those criticisms of its details, I desire to say I agree with the basic principle of the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that the matters which I have touched upon, and others which I have not, will have to be very carefully considered in Committee.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: This Bill is a great advance towards achieving the principle that all men should have equal facilities of access to the courts of law. Whatever detailed criticisms may be made of the form and scope of the Bill, the fact that it is a great advance towards social justice will still remain. I should not like my criticisms, therefore, to be regarded as mitigating or modifying the tribute which I pay to those who introduced the Bill.
  However, it is clear that a scheme of giving assistance in legal matters does give rise to several difficulties which we have not yet faced and resolved. Under this Bill there are at least four divisions of legal assistance. The first is the legal aid centre; the second consists of facilities for taking and defending actions in the civil courts; the third is the self-contained divorce unit; and the fourth is the legal aid available in criminal proceedings. Much of the way in which the legal assistance will work will depend on the scheme which is to be formulated by the Law Society. Much of it is left out of the Bill. I think, however, one can
  1284
  indicate how in some respects the Bill seems to impede the formulation of a proper scheme.
  I should like, first, to deal with the legal advice centres. It is strange that they are not treated first in the Bill, because they are, in a sense, the basis of legal aid. I had some experience of the working of a legal advice centre during the war, and the experience gained with the legal advice bureaux of the Army and Royal Air Force may be useful when we work out the way in which the legal advice centres are to work under this Bill. It seems to me that the scope of the work which the legal advice centres will do has not really been well thought out. It is not enough merely to say that they shall be able to give oral advice and help in preparing applications for legal aid. In most cases, when a person wants to take action because he feels his rights have been violated, or wants to defend an action brought against him, it will be to the legal aid centre that he will go. The legal aid centre will be the place from which legal assistance will emanate. In many cases a legal aid centre will not be able to give helpful legal advice without, for example, taking statements from witnesses. Is that to be part of the work of a legal advice centre? If they are to help in preparing applications for legal aid to the local committees, it seems essential to me that the legal advice centres should have power, not to make inquiries in the way in which an inquiry agency makes them, but to get in touch with witnesses and to take statements from them very much in the way in which the legal advice bureaux did in the Forces.
  I think it was the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) who referred to the kind of case in which a man must take action quickly. It is well known that a wise man, when he is concerned in a case which may go to a court of law, takes legal advice at the earliest possible moment. A great mistake that one often finds is that the taking of legal advice is left until too late a stage. If a man is involved in an accident—say, a man riding a bicycle; not driving a motor car, for he would be covered by a policy of insurance—and wants legal advice, he will probably go to a legal advice centre. They may want to get in touch with various people. They may want to advise a certain course

  1285
  of action, or to arrange for representation at an inquest. if all this is to be effective, they should have power to take quick action. The solicitor in charge of a local advice centre should have power to take action and to arrange for a man's legal representation right away, otherwise many of the advantages of legal assistance will be lost.
  Another difficulty which may occur with regard to legal advice centres is that the two parties may go to the same legal advice centre. That may easily happen. More often than not the two parties to a law action reside in the same locality. If there is but one centre, presumably the one who gets there first will get the advice, and then what will happen to the other one? That brings me to the position of the local committee which gives civil aid certificates so that an action may be carried on in the High Court or county court. The same thing may happen there. The person who wants to bring the action may refer it to the local committee; and, after he has obtained his civil aid certificate there, the person against whom the action is brought, who may very likely be in the category of an assisted person, may apply to the same committee for a civil aid certificate. These complexities must be very carefully worked out.
  Many hon. Members have talked today about restricting the eagerness of potential litigants, of damping down their enthusiasm for going to law over a grievance. People must not be encouraged lightly to go to courts of law. As against that, it is equally important that persons should not feel aggrieved that they have been deprived of access to the courts. I am not sure that the provisions of this Bill repecting civil aid certificates are really adequate in that respect. Suppose a man goes to a local committee and asks for a civil aid certificate, and is refused it; he has the right, apparently, to appeal to an area committee; but if that committee turn him down he has no further appeal. In criminal cases he can go to the judge. Surely in civil cases also it is only right that there should be an ultimate right of appeal to a judge, say a county court judge, against the refusal of a committee to grant a civil aid certificate. After all, the power to grant or refuse a civil aid certificate is a very important power.
  1286
  I want to say a word now about the scope of the subjects the Bill is to cover. I agree that defamation should be included in the Bill. It is unjustifiable that the right of a man to protect his reputation should be separated from his right to protect his property. I am not impressed with this talk about garden-wall slander, because slander in a small village or street can be just as much the cause of injury and suffering as any other legal wrong. If we say that these are merely petty squabbles for which legal assistance cannot be given then we are making a mockery of the principle that all men are equal before the law. I hope the Government will be ready to accept an Amendment in Committee toe include defamation.
  A good point was made about the unfairness to a non-assisted person who finds himself in litigation against an assisted person. Normally, it is the person who wins an action who has the costs awarded to him, and it is the unsuccessful party that pays his costs. An action may be brought by a person just above the limit laid down in this Bill, and he may win the action.
  Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Member say what he means by "limit," because, as has been pointed out, the limit is not the amount expressed in terms of the Bill, but is dependent on what the National Assistance Board say?
  Mr. Roberts: I mean a person who does not qualify for assistance. If an action is brought by a non-assisted person against an assisted person and the non-assisted person wins, he then has to pay, unless he has an order from the court, the whole of his own costs. Surely, in that sort of case where a successful litigant is unable to recover the costs from the assisted person, the costs should be borne by the Legal Aid Fund; this would be the equitable way of dealing with the position.
  The administration has quite rightly been left to the Law Society, but it will be a mistake to make that administration a closed shop, entirely the preserve of lawyers; I speak as a lawyer. I see from the White Paper it is intended that the area committees shall consist entirely of lawyers, as well as the local committees. It is quite right that the certifying committee shall consist of lawyers, but surely

  1287
  the area committees should have lay representatives—for example, magistrates. It will be good for the lawyers and for the laymen and for the scheme if laymen have a voice in the working of this scheme.
  Lastly, I do not see any provision in the Bill that a report on the scheme has to be presented to Parliament every year. It would be very desirable for an annual report to be presented by the Lord Chancellor to Parliament on the working of the scheme as a whole, on the civil side and on the criminal side. If we are to make further steps towards the principle of equality of all persons before the law, it is essential that Parliament has cognisance year by year of the way the scheme is working out.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. William Wells: I think that in the course of later stages of this Debate—if I may say so without disrespect to a great profession of which I am proud to be a very undistinguished member—we have lost sight of the fact that we are undertaking a bold, great and imaginative reform. We have lost sight of that fact in the mass of details raised, which are all very interesting and important, and will, no doubt, be dealt with during the Committee stage. I agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) that we desire to see lay representatives on these area committees, although I appreciate there are difficulties about that. It may be felt that, as the committees are dealing with extremely confidential matters, only those who have had professional training in handling confidential matters and will treat them with discretion should be on these committees. But that is rather a cowardly course to take. I believe there are plenty of people upon whom the importance of discretion can be impressed, and that it would be a tremendous gain, both to the scheme and to public confidence in the scheme, were lay representatives to be brought in.
  I very much disagree with the suggestion, tentatively put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield), that the financial administration under the Bill should be transferred from the National Assistance Board to the organisation that is responsible for the rest of the scheme. We have to face this rather delicate matter that there will
  1288
  almost inevitably arise occasions when it will be of financial advantage to certain persons sitting on committees that a litigant shall not be entitled to assistance, when the grant of such assistance will mean that professional people will not get the full professional fees. It would be fatal if those who have to assess the factors in any particular case and decide whether a person deserves assistance financially were members of the legal profession. The National Assistance Board will command the public confidence in a much greater measure—I say this with all respect—than those who administer the rest of the scheme could do.
  There are two broad questions which have to be answered in relation to the Bill. Does it provide the right kind of service to the people who need it; and secondly, is the machinery likely to be efficacious? The great merit of the Bill, and of the Rushcliffe scheme to which broadly it gives effect, is that it gives the assisted litigant the same sort of service on the same footing as the non-assisted litigant. I emphasise the importance of the free choice of legal adviser for which the scheme provides.
  I suppose that the means test provision will at all stages give rise to a certain amount of anxiety, but in this case it is right and inevitable to háve some kind of means test. The Bill gets very near, however, to an extremely objectionable kind of means test in Clause 2 (2,e), which deals with the liability of an unsuccessful assisted litigant who has to pay the costs of a successful party. I hope that when the regulations are drawn up, they will be drawn very tightly in defining the principles on which the Assistance Board is to work and also very generously as to the kind of help that is to be given to the unsuccessful litigant.
  The provisions dealing with disposable income are good. It still remains a fact that heavy litigation is bound to be a heavy burden, although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) rather exaggerated the danger of that position and minimised the provisions in the Bill that deal with it. The most questionable provision on the financial side is that dealing with disposable capital. Even successful litigation might prove serious, embarrassing or even ruinous to a litigant with a small capital, if several appeals were involved. As to the general points

  1289
  that have been made regarding the financial limits—if that is the proper word to use—it is inevitable that, for one reason or another, there will be hard borderline cases, about which one could argue indefinitely—such as why somebody who has 4s. more than somebody else should be excluded from this scheme. I do not see how any scheme that can be devised by the human brain can be exempt from that sort of objection, and there always will be, and must be, the hard case. I hope that at some later stage it may be possible to introduce some further flexibility in income limits. For example, it is no hardship for a man with a little income to fight a county court action, but a high court cause which might go to the court of appeal or even to the House of Lords would be quite a different matter.
  I wish to deal only very shortly with two outstanding points from Part I. The first is excluded causes of action. This seems to me one of the most difficult and delicate matters in the whole of the Bill. Personally, I shed no tears over the exclusion of any of these causes of action except defamation. I would agree with the Attorney-General that all these exclusions are matters of convenience—so as not at first to overweight the machine—rather than of principle. However, the question of libel as distinct from slander needs some careful further thought. Nobody is more aware than I am that there exists a blackmailing business on the fringe of the legal profession which exploits such causes of action. Libel undoubtedly is responsible for some of the least meritorious causes that come before the courts; it is also responsible for some of the most meritorious causes that come before the courts. It is a grave hardship for a man who would otherwise be an assisted litigant, if he cannot in any circumstances, except those adumbrated by the hon. and learned Member for Chester, namely, where he has other causes of action, get assistance to bring that cause before the courts. I agree, on the other hand, with the Attorney-General that for the time being, in view of the necessity not to overload the scheme with tribunals other than what I will call the normal courts of law, we must for the present exclude such bodies from the purview of the Bill.
  I have one or two short questions to ask on Part II. Why is no rule-making
  1290
  power included as there is in Part I? If the answer is that previous legislation covers this point, is that really a satisfactory answer? I do not want to weary the House with a lot of detail at this stage, but I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give some thought to the point. One further point I wish to make on Part II is—would it not be well to make quite clear to all, as already, since a judgment of Mr. Justice Humphreys, it has been clear to all those who have studied the matter, that legal aid may be made available where the prisoner intends to plead guilty to the charge.
  In the course of what I have said before, I have covered the points I wished to make about the machinery of the Bill. It is right to touch shortly on its effects on the profession. Speaking as a member of the Bar, one should face the fact that in the short run, the scheme is going to be a very mixed blessing for the solicitors' branch of the profession whereas, on the whole, it is going to be good for the Bar. I do not think I need go into details on that point. It rests shortly on the difference between the comparatively small overheads that the barrister has to meet and the much heavier overheads that the solicitor has to pay. I believe that the Law Society are doing a great work in undertaking this matter. I also believe and hope that the solicitors who enter the scheme will be compensated to the full in the long run for the present losses, disadvantages, and inconveniences that they may incur by having to build up a larger litigation staff than will be justified by the profits that they will receive from the work. I believe that a Measure of this kind is the only way to keep the legal profession in touch with the requirements of justice today, and I am sure that the Law Society are right in the action that they are taking. I hope that they will be supported by solicitors throughout the country.
  I believe that this is a thoroughly good Bill. On this side of the House, we are used to those who sit in front of us proposing thoroughly good Bills. We are not always accustomed to the reception which this Bill has received from the other side of the House today. There was, indeed, a moment when I thought that the right hon. and learned Member

  1291
  for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was going to be tempted into drawing an analogy from a legal advice bureau to a licensed house, but he steered clear of that temptation with commendable strength of mind. I feel in this time, when political controversies are sharp and will become sharper, that it is very good that there should be a wide measure of agreement between the two sides of the House on this great, bold and imaginative Measure of social reform.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I am glad of the opportunity, as another member of the Bar, to participate in this discussion. It may be said that the Debate has become purely a lawyers' day out, but I do not see why lawyers should not have a day out like anybody else. Moreover, I think that all those who have spoken have emphasised the human rather than the technical side of the problems of the law. I want to deal with Part II of the Bill. Speaking for myself I am generally content with the provisions of Part I. I can think of modifications and criticisms but these provisions deal satisfactorily with the position, when they are taken broadly, and as a whole. Part II deals with legal aid in respect of criminal offences. I am bound to say that I am not satisfied with it. The ordinary man frequently and largely comes into contact with the law precisely in relation to those offences. One might say that the magistrates and petty sessional courts are the poor man's courts even more so than are the county courts. So far as this class of case is concerned, the obiter dictum of Mr. Justice Darling, which was mentioned by the Attorney-General in opening, that the courts, like the Ritz, are open to everybody, loses its sting. In the criminal law the person who is involved does not choose whether he goes there or not. The man who brings a case under civil law can choose whether to bring it and the person who defends it can choose whether to defend it. The person involved in criminal proceedings is brought to the court whether he likes it or not. He is not concerned with the fact that the courts are open. In most cases he would very much rather that they were shut.
  1292
  I can remember a case in which I was prosecuting when very young at the Bar. The man pleaded for legal aid. The recorder presiding over the court asked him whether he had any means. He replied: "Yes. Sir, I have a wife and six children." Upon that, the recorder said: "A very doubtful asset." I thought that incident was not so much amusing as rather touching and expressive. Here is the small man who comes into conflict with the panoply and crushing machinery of the law and who is frightened, bewildered and somewhat helpless. I have always a certain sympathy, whatever may be the State, or the tribunal or the crime, with the man who is pitting his own puny resources against the powerful legal machine of the community; against the resources, for instance, which the police have to prepare and state a case, summon witnesses and obtain documents. I have always a certain sympathy with a man in that position.
  I believe that in this country we have done much to redress the balance between the man who is fighting for liberty and the community, to ensure that there shall be a balance of justice and that both shall present their cases fairly. I believe we have done more than any other country, although I do not think we have done enough. In this respect I do not think that the Bill goes far enough. I am not at all satisfied that the Poor Prisoners Defence Act and the other provisions for legal aid for people tried for criminal offences satisfactorily meets the needs of the community and of the poor person who is tried for his liberty. In fact the matter is dealt with in the Rushcliffe Report; some of the criticisms are mentioned there, upon page 25. There is a quotation from "The Justice of the Peace," 1943, page 325; which in turn mentions some observations made by Mr. Justice Humphreys at a then recent trial. It says:
  "From the newspaper report it appears that the learned judge had inquired why the prisoner, who it seems may have pleaded guilty, was not represented and was informed by prosecuting counsel that Clerks to Justices were often reluctant to grant legal aid to persons who did not disclose their defence before the magistrates."
  I think that those who practise in the courts would say that that was a frequent occurrence even today.

  1293
  It is difficult in many deserving cases for the prisoner, who ought to obtain it, to get legal aid. There are certain exceptions. I know, for instance, of certain courts, quarter sessions and assizes where the judge or recorder sometimes gives legal aid to a man who has pleaded "Not guilty" when it appears quite clear from the depositions that he is guilty, no doubt in order that he may be advised by counsel on his plea. In those cases, while the altered plea may in due course save the time of the court and may be a good investment in saving the time of witnesses and others, it is a little remarkable that the man, just because he has pleaded "Not guilty" and has been rather awkward, derives the benefit of legal representation, when, if he had pleaded "Guilty" at the outset, he would not have got the same rights. Some of the more cynical members of the Bar have been heard to describe the Poor Prisoners Defence Act as the "Poor Defence of Prisoners Act." Sometimes that seems to be true because of the inadequate time and facilities allowed to provide for the defence of prisoners.
  The Bill continues the old procedure in relation to the provision of legal aid for those people. The existing structure is hardly modified at all. All that happens is that we get new guiding principles put forward, but the same discretion which was exercised before is vested in the same tribunals and is exercised in precisely the same way. I should prefer a much broader provision. I do not see why, if the prosecution of a prisoner is a State expense, the defence of a prisoner should not be a State expense also. If it is in the interests of the public that a man should be prosecuted, it is also in their interests that the other side should be heard and that a fair balance should be placed before any tribunal.
  Where any man is tried for his liberty—for any offence which might involve a sentence of imprisonment—he ought to have the absolute right to be defended, irrespective of whether he pleads guilty or not guilty, whether he does or does not disclose a defence or, I will even add, irrespective of his means. It may be said that such a system would result in people who could afford to pay for their own defence getting away with the expense. I am not unduly concerned about that. Such a provision, of course, would avoid
  1294
  a means test, and as far as the people with means beyond any income limits are concerned they pay through their taxes for legal defence: I do not see why they should not get it in precisely the same way as under the National Health Service, for instance, they receive medical attention without being asked by anybody about their means.
  Moreover, it is in the experience of all of us, members of the legal profession and otherwise, that not infrequently a man of what we might call the middle income group defends himself against a criminal charge, vindicates his name and saves his liberty only to find that he is financially ruined. That which I have proposed would obviate such cases. If it is not possible to introduce such broad terms into the Bill, I ask the Government to consider introducing a more uniform method of assessing means even if it is that provided in Part I of the Bill. For all its deficiencies, this method does introduce an element of uniformity where otherwise there would be complete diversity and a complete difference in practice and in the assessment of means. I say frankly that some magistrates' courts are not in a position to understand and assess the means of the ordinary working man. This is a matter, however, which is still left very largely in their hands. It would be far better for such provisions to be vested in the National Assistance Board or dealt with in some other form than that which now exists.
  These are matters to which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will, I hope, reply, for I am not satisfied with the provisions of legal aid in criminal cases. After all, civil cases may deal in property but a criminal charge involves what to a man is the most important thing, his liberty, and I hope that we shall not continue the present unsatisfactory structure. Having made that criticism I want, in conclusion, together with other hon. Members, to congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this broad and humane Measure during their other preoccupations. I consider the Bill to be a great step forward in the social and legal structure of this country.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. D. A. Price-White: As I sat listening to the even tenor of the Debate, I could not help

  1295
  thinking that nothing was further removed from the hurly-burly and bitterness of the litigation which we seek to make more accessible to the general public than the calm and peace of this Debate. It has also been described as a Roman holiday for the lawyers. I only wish that this particular Roman Empire were more thickly. populated on this occasion.
  The hon. Member for East Waltham-stow (Mr. H. Wallace) implied that there was something remarkable in the Bill in that it was experimental. But this is by no means the first experimental Bill we have had in this place of recent years. It has, however, this great difference: that for executive purposes it is to be put into the hands of the Law Society rather than of a newly-appointed national commission or board. In the hands of the Law Society it will have a far greater chance of proving its worth in practice than certain other experimental Measures which we have recently considered.
  I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but there are certain points of legitimate criticism which do arise in the Bill. I am thankful that there are very many more points of general agreement. I am sorry the Attorney-General is not in his place, for I should have liked to have had the opportunity of congratulating him on the lucidity and care with which he explained the Measure. A tribute is due equally, I think, to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). Tomorrow morning the Attorney-General will have many more interesting and exciting matters to read than any report of my speech in HANSARD, but he is to be congratulated on the manner in which he introduced the Bill. I felt I was being taken back to certain times, longer ago than I care to remember, when, as an articled clerk, I used to listen to the Attorney-General, as he now is, dealing with licensing and various other matters in courts somewhat further North than here. I felt that tonight he was more at home and was back once again in what was for him a legitimate stamping ground, with no inhibitions as to whether a political opinion ought to be expressed or otherwise.
  I should like to deal particularly with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)
  1296
  and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts). I think they were quite fair in introducing criticisms of the non-provision for lay persons on the various committees. This is a matter, quite frankly, of some delicacy, particularly to lawyers, but the decision to have these committees composed of technicians—professional lawyers—is, I feel, perfectly sound. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester failed to remember that the Bill is the result of a unanimous report by, possibly, one of the best and what, I trust, will be proved to be one of the most successful committees set up—the Rushcliffe Committee, which was non-party and truly representative, and which dealt with the particular problem of the constitution of these committees and decided that in the interests of the scheme and thereby of the general population of the country, it was fairer, sounder and would promise a greater efficacy, if the committees were made up of professional lawyers. I am certain that in that decision they were right.
  I can understand how their decision might lead to a suspicion of there being a closed shop of the very vilest and worst type, in favour of lawyers and how it might, in some respects, make the whole scheme distasteful to very many persons. The whole problem is really a matter of, if I may use the expression, mass psychology. I happen to belong to the branch of the profession which I am pleased to regard as the harder working, the more practical and certainly the more poorly remunerated. One comes face to face with the various difficulties of the ordinary person in different ways and I have found that, while it is regrettable, it is nevertheless true that the average person, apart from social occasions, hates to be seen in the professional company of a lawyer. I know from experience that, if a solicitor sets up a practice and puts up his nameplate at a single address, it is surprising what a number of persons who would normally go to consult him, do not go there because they are immediately labelled as being engaged in litigation.
  But let him remove his office to a larger and more commodious building where there may be an accountant above him, a flimsy bookmaker and an Income Tax collector or expert behind him and the increase in clientele is remarkable, because the average person bluffs himself

  1297
  or herself that no one in the street outside knows whether it is to the bookmaker, the accountant, the Income Tax collector, or the lawyer that he, or she, is going. I always feel that the public go to great pains to get lawyers out of the way by getting so many of us elected to this House and in that way, perhaps, they get the last laugh. But, in spite of the general suspicion of the profession, there is not the slightest doubt that they have the greatest respect for our training and experience, particularly in matters of judgment and advice and. above all, in matters of secrecy.
  I can well imagine, and I am not speaking particularly of a place as large and as impersonal as London, but of the sort of place in which I have practised, and on which this Bill, when it becomes law, will have a more direct and practical impingement than on this great metropolis, that what will happen is that Mr. Smith will be told that he will be considered and treated properly and fairly by a committee of lawyers. But, directly one tells Mr. Smith that Tom Williams—who has no association with this House—his neighbour up the street, is on the committee, he will say, "Tell my private affairs and my trouble with the missus to that fellow? Not likely."
  Therefore, I am all the more surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Merioneth sought to criticise the proposal. After all, everyone is human and a committee will be considering most intimate details of a man's or a woman's life. On the committee there may be someone who is perhaps more garrulous, who may reveal those details and do irretrievable harm to that person whose confidences are given away. If that happens, how can we remove the ill that has been done and where is the sanction against a chatterbox on the committee? There is none. But if we confine membership of the committees to trained professional lawyers, there is the sanction of the organisation and disciplinary measures of, respectively, the Bar Council and the Law Society, and thereby there will be an assurance of that sanctity of confidence so necessary to the scheme. Many applications will be turned down, quite rightly, on their legal merits and on the facts, where it would be an abuse and a waste of time of the scheme if they were
  1298
  allowed to pass up the chain of circumstances purely by reason of sympathy, as would so often be the case if the matter were not dealt with purely on its legal merits. The scheme would be cluttered up with cases in which it would not be right to have made available the facilities afforded by the legal aid scheme.
  I say with every certainty that the Rushcliffe Committee was correct. I appreciate that as a profession we lawyers are open to doubt and attack on this proposal, but I am equally certain that if the scheme is to work in the manner in which we hope it will work, and know it can work, the proposals are correct. We must not forget that the Rushcliffe Committee and the Bill have provided for the voice of the layman to be heard, and his advice taken, on the highest committee of the whole scheme. The Advisory Committee of the Lord Chancellor has the lay voice on it and has none of the suspicion of the professional lawyer.
  One small criticism, in which I may be anticipating the Committee stage, is in relation to the provisions for county court cases. They will permit of an approved litigant employing a lawyer, at the expense of the State, to obtain judgment. If the successful litigant wishes to enforce the judgment by way of a judgment sumons, he has to pay for that eventual and final proceeding in his action. That point should be looked into on the Committee stage. It is rather like sending one's favourite nephew a motor cycle for Christmas, but pointing out at the same time that he is too young to hold a driving licence.
  Perhaps it is right that I should take this opportunity of recording that the scheme—which we all welcome—is a result of the enormous amount of unknown and sometimes unappreciated work done in the past by both branches of the profession in poor persons' procedure and legal aid as we know it today. Too little is known of what has been done in that direction. I found in experience that if one wanted a really difficult and long-drawn-out case, it came into the office under that procedure. But we did not grumble and great work was done. We all trust that the Bill will go through smoothly and produce a scheme which, at long last, will provide a system making full legal aid available at reasonable cost to all who are justified in taking action in the courts.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: Hazlitt said that the only thing that gave him any respect for the House of Commons was the contempt felt there for lawyers. Of course, on an occasion such as this, I would never venture to echo such seditious words; none the less, I do not think that those of us who are not lawyers need be too diffident in intervening in this Debate. This Bill is not primarily a lawyers' Bill; it is primarily, so to speak, a consumers' Bill. It is one of the many Measures introduced by the present Government for the benefit of the vast mass of the people, working-class and middle-class, and as such. I think we all congratulate the Government upon it. In this case it is not the vast mass of the people who are affected, but that considerable minority of them who, unfortunately, from time to time "get," as we always unkindly put it, "into the hands of the lawyers."
  As several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White), have remarked, this Debate has been considerably more mild and less bitter than yesterday's, which was also introduced from the Opposition Benches by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). I feel sure that, with his usual fairness, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will seize every opportunity he gets in the country of praising the Labour Government as warmly for this Measure as he will continue, no doubt, to damn them for yesterday's Licensing Bill.
  I agree with many hon. Members who have questioned whether the top income limit of £420 disposable income is really logical or equitable. Several of my hon. and learned Friends argued among themselves for some time about the real gross income that that represented; but the Attorney-General had already told us that it represented, on an average, probably a gross income of
  £550 to £750. It seems to me that there may be many people, professional men, doctors, Members of Parliament even, with gross incomes of considerably more than that, say £1,000 a year to £1,500 a year, who still could not possibly afford protracted legislation, especially in the High Court. This, incidentally, as the Attorney-General is undoubtedly aware, is one of the criticisms of the Bill made by the Haldane Society,
  1300
  which may help to commend it to my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
  One small point, in passing, is this, I am extremely glad to notice in the Bill that when the service provided is not free justice but what one might call assisted justice, it is also to be hire-purchase justice—that is to say, the payments may be made gradually over a period of time. I hope that we can take it—I suppose we can—that the litigant will not be required to pay that lump sum in advance which solicitors usually, cautiously demand of him—that £50 or £100 which is such a damper on the glowing optimism with which people set out on litigation.
  The main point that I wish to make has already been raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. I with them, regret very much that libel and slander, particularly libel, have been omitted from the Bill. As a journalist, I have been at the receiving end as well as the delivering end of a number of writs for libel. On the whole, I think that the former is the less uncomfortable position, because the journalist who perpetrates an alleged libel is, after all, protected financially by his employer, the publisher of the newspaper in which he writes it; and no doubt the employer, in turn, is covered by an insurance policy. But no such protection is available to the ordinary citizen who feels himself grievously libelled, perhaps by some big or powerful, or small local, newspaper. The costs of trying to vindicate his reputation are bound to be very considerable. After all, one cannot start a libel action in the county court, but only in the High Court.
  There may be two main reasons why it was felt impossible or unwise to include libel within the scope of this scheme. The first is that our libel laws are obscure, archaic and confused, and therefore, as the Attorney-General said, they are capable of abuse and are in fact constantly being abused, by blackmailing threats of libel actions and so on. No doubt these laws will in due course be reformed, either on the lines suggested by the Porter Committee or otherwise. I hope that, if we have to wait until then, either my hon. Friend tonight or perhaps the Attorney-General during the Committee stage, will give us some rather more definite assurance that

  1301
  libel will be brought within the scope of this scheme.
  The second reason against including it was, of course, indicated by the Attorney-General when he spoke of the back doorstep arguments, the petty squabbles, and hinted that public money would have to be spent on a mass of frivolous and what are politely called speculative actions. But I should have thought that that would sort itself out fairly quickly. For the first few months there might be thousands of attempts to bring frivolous actions of that kind, but surely the committees will have quite sufficient powers to refuse certificates and quite sufficient experience to see very quickly whether what is being brought before them is serious or not. In this connection, I was not greatly impressed by the Attorney-General's argument that the treatment of this matter by different committees in different areas might not be uniform. I should think that that criticism might equally apply to all sorts of different types of cases.
  It might well be, especially at first, as I say, that nine out of ten cases in which people sought legal aid or advice in connection with libel would be frivolous or speculative, but the tenth case might be like the now celebrated case of Miss Arnot Robertson, which I should like to quote by way of illustration of the kind of thing which I feel ought to be covered by this Measure. Since I am quoting it, I should perhaps make the illustration more exact and more graphic by venturing briefly to remind hon. Members of the facts of this case.
  It was in 1946 that a large film company, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, wrote to the B.B.C., whose film critic at that time was Miss Arnot Robertson, complaining of her criticisms of their films. She sued them for libelling her in their letter to the B.B.C., and for slander, since they had also read the letter to a newspaper. The case was heard in the King's Bench Division in July, 1947, and judgment was given for Miss Robertson, with £1,500 damages. The jury held that the M.G.M. letter was libellous and malicious and imputed professional incompetence. The film company appealed in July, 1948; the appeal succeeded, the three judges in the Appeal Court agreeing that there had been technical misdirection of the jury in the lower court.
  1302
  The appeal succeeded, with costs against Miss Robertson, who thus found herself, and finds herself, not £1,500 better off financially but about £5,000 down financially, a sum which is quite ruinous to her. Leave was granted to appeal to the House of Lords; but, of course, if she should so appeal, it would cost probably another £2,500, making a sum of about £8,000 in all. That seems to me to be pre-eminently the kind of case, raising as it does an issue of great public importance, the right of free criticism, in which public money should be used. It is a matter of real public interest. Yet this lady, this film critic, has been penalised through no fault of her own, and not on the merits of the case, but because, as I have explained, there was technical misdirection in one court. I hope, therefore, that when my hon. Friend replies to the Debate he will assure us that serious attention is being paid to this kind of issue.
  I stress this illustration in particular, because it is perfectly clear that this particular company has been abusing its wealth and power and throwing its weight about, and pursuing, as a policy, a vendetta against free criticism. Some years ago it tried the same trick on with another film critic, Miss Dilys Powell, of the "Sunday Times." I do not know whether she then contemplated an action for libel. It may well be—and this is why, I think that this also is relevant—that she would have contemplated such an action had it been possible to bring one with the assistance afforded by this Bill, if libel were in it. I do not know whether she did contemplate it, but fortunately her employers, the "Sunday Times" and Lord Kemsley, stood by her very staunchly. For 10 solid months she was barred from every M.G.M. film and for 10 solid months no review of any M.G.M. film appeared in the "Sunday Times"; that is not a satisfactory situation from the point of view of the public, who, after all, are entitled to be informed of what is going on in the film world, as in every sphere of news and culture. That is why I say that this kind of action is pre-eminently of public interest.
  Incidentally, Lord Kemsley, whom I have just mentioned, has contributed very generously to the fund which a number of individuals are raising for Miss Arnot Robertson; so have the National Union

  1303
  of Journalists, of which she does not happen to be a member, and a number of other individuals and newspapers. The extraordinary, fantastic climax of the episode is that, when some of her colleagues in the Critics' Circle started to get up this fund, to have a whip-round—and it is, after all, a pretty substantial whip-round, for £8,000 takes a bit of raising—M.G.M., quite legally, weighed in again with threats of libel actions against them, obviously in order to restrain them from trying to help their colleague in her difficulties. The power-crazed vindictiveness of this Caliban corporation is really, I must say, most deplorable.
  It is also worth noting that the people who do organise such a comradely whip-round are possibly running a very slight risk of being accused of the terrible crime of maintenance and/or champerty. That I am not qualified to deal with; possibly some of my legal friends are.
  There is, as I say, this fund for Miss Arnot Robertson to which a number of public-spirited individuals have contributed; I hope that many more will do so. But I feel that it should not be left to the caprice of individual generosity, or the accident of being able to find somebody with the time to spare to organise such a fund—which is quite a big job—in order to see that justice is done in a matter of real public interest such as the maintenance of free criticism. As things are, it may, clearly, be difficult in the future for critics, or other writers in similar circumstances, to risk bringing libel actions at all against these opulent and barbarous Hollywood corporations, whoever they may be, who are trying to gag English criticism and intimidate English critics. I hope that my hon. Friend and the Attorney-General will endeavour at the earliest moment to make good this considerable and serious flaw in their otherwise excellent Measure.
  8.44 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Many of us have felt for a long time that an adequate, measure of legal aid was a very essential part of our scheme for social security. To that extent we are all very grateful to the Attorney-General for persuading the Government to introduce this Bill now. It will provide a cheap kind of
  1304
  social insurance. It will help to increase public respect for the law, which in itself is a very desirable thing. As a matter of fact, if I may be pardoned for harking back to the past, this very subject of legal aid was one on which I spoke in this House in 1945 when I had the privilege and the ordeal of making my maiden speech. I suppose that for three years to elapse between asking for something and getting it done, cannot be regarded as too long in these days.
  I do not propose to cover the ground already covered by previous speakers. Many points have been made which are, in effect, Committee points. There is, however, one very important matter to which I wish to draw attention. It involves a problem which I think may vitiate the greater part of the discussion which has already taken place. It is this. Many of us have felt very strongly that the assessment or the fixing or disposable income and capital should not form part of the Bill but should be left for amendment by regulation from time to time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) did mention that the poor persons' aid rules at present in operation are based on 1914 figures. It has taken over 30 years to get away from those figures of £2 or £4 a week beyond which legal aid is not available. What I and many other hon. Members are afraid of is that if these Clauses relating to disposable income and capital form part of the Bill, it will be quite impossible at a future date, without amending legislation, to introduce any changes in that respect.
  The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will recall that, when he compares the figures set out in the Conservative pamphlet entitled "Looking Ahead" on the subject of legal aid, with the situation that now exists. I think he will agree that he would not find it possible to come to this House and argue that the figures advocated in the 1945 publication of the Conservative Party could be justified now. Reference was made to the fact that if the Government do not accept the suggestion to take out of the Bill the specific Clauses relating to the fixation of disposable income and capital, then it will be quite impossible for any ordinary Member to introduce any Amendment to that effect on Committee stage. I hope I am not breaking

  1305
  the rule as to anticipation, but the Financial Resolution which the House will be asked to pass if the Bill receives a Second Reading, will so tie us down as to make it quite impossible for any hon. Member in any part of the House, to introduce any change in that respect in Committee.
  The discussion that has taken place on these Clauses will serve no purpose during the remaining stages of the Bill unless we can persuade the Government to think again on this one particular item. I hope that they will do so. I hope that by an adroit use of Parliamentary procedure, hon. Members will not be deprived of the opportunity, to which perhaps some of them were innocently looking forward, of persuading the Government on the Committee stage to introduce some Amendment to the Bill as it stands. It will be most regrettable if, as the result of the Second Reading and the Financial Resolution, this House were denied the opportunity of putting forward any Amendment which would enable the authorities administering the scheme to vary the figures of disposable capital and income from time to time by regulation. The Attorney-General said that this is a skeleton Bill. The items concerning disposable capital and income will not be subject to regulation. Amending legislation will be required, and, judging from our experience, it is only once in a generation that we get legislation dealing with legal aid for persons of moderate means.
  I hope that the rôle to be played by the Assistance Board will not be a delaying factor. Reference has been made to the necessity for speed in granting legal aid certificates. I hope that speedy investigation will take place, particularly in those cases where the applicant has to enter an appearance or where action must be taken within a specified time of six or 12 months of the event in respect of which the litigation arises. It may be assumed that in the early stages of the scheme it will be found that many people will ask for legal advice and they may have only 24 or 48 hours before their legal remedy, such as it is, will be exhausted. I hope that provision will be made to surmount that difficulty both on the part of the area or certifying committees and on the part of the Assistance Board.
  1306
  As regards the spate of litigation likely to ensue, those of us who have had experience of legal aid in the past agree that the bulk of the cases likely to crop up are matrimonial cases. There is a vast pent-up demand for divorces on the part of people who have £4 10s. or £5 a week and who hitherto could not afford to take proceedings. For the first year or two, it may well be that the bulk of the cases requiring attention will be of a matrimonial character. Even at present, under the Services legal aid scheme, with the demobilisation that is taking place, the bulk of the Service applications concern matrimonial difficulties. The same experience will arise when this Bill becomes law. For those reasons, I hope that the fullest possible use will be made of the divorce units to be run and maintained by the Law Society. Under the Bill as it stands, the divorce units of the Law Society will only be able to undertake those cases where the contribution from the applicant does not exceed £10. Even if it is found necessary in order to keep the divorce units of the Law Society fully occupied, to increase the £10 limit, I hope that there will be no hesitation in arranging for that to be done.
  From my knowledge of the good work done by these divorce units, I can say that they deal with the cases, most of which are undefended, with a despatch and a degree of economy with which the ordinary outside firm of solicitors is unable to compete. To that extent, there ought to be a considerable saving in expense to the Exchequer, if the utmost possible use is made of the divorce units of the Law Society. I should have liked to deal at greater length with the point already made about the gap that seems to exist between the oral advice to be given by the solicitor at 2s. 6d. a time, or less, and the stage when the certifying committee will grant a certificate entitling the application to proceed.
  Those of us who have had any experience of the Services legal aid scheme know that it is impossible to limit advice to a few oral remarks. In order not to waste the time of the certifying committees—because they will consist of busy professional men—it is absolutely essential that the schemes should authorise the advising solicitor to establish whether or not there is a prima facie

  1307
  case. Otherwise, it will be found that one will have to ask the certifying committee to grant certificates in a large number of cases where it is found subsequently that there is no cause for action but where it would be dangerous to refuse a certificate because the applicant may possibly have a case which has not yet been substantiated or verified by the advising solicitor.
  I support the plea that there should be some consumer representation. I do not think that the question of privilege or the confidential relationship between solicitor and client would be affected. After all, it will be the job of the certifying committee to go into the details. There would be no danger in some lay representative sitting on at least the area committees, if not on the local committees. The actual details of any case in respect of which a certificate is to be granted will be known only to the certifying committee. It is that committee which will have to decide, and that committee will consist solely of barristers or solicitors.
  My next point concerns the position of Service applicants under the Bill. At the moment provision is made under the Admiralty, Army or Royal Air Force legal aid schemes. Officers and other ranks—qualified solicitors, barristers and solicitors' clerks—are available at all command headquarters at home and abroad to advise Service men on legal questions which affect them in their civilian capacity. I hope that the regulations to be drawn up will not mean that any lesser number of Service men will be eligible for assistance than has been the case hitherto. I hope that the regulations will be interpreted most generously, particularly in respect of the men serving overseas, who are cut off from the ordinary sources of advice available to men who are serving at home.
  I do not know how that problem will be dealt with by the Law Society under the Bill. It may be that they will have representatives in a civilian capacity attached to the various command headquarters to whom Service applicants will have speedy access when necessary. There are a number of officers and men in the Navy, the Army and the Air Force who voluntarily extended their Service for the purpose of ensuring that there is
  1308
  no gap between the winding up of the Services legal aid scheme and the introduction of this Bill. I hope that the most generous possible provision will be made for them. As a result of continuing in the Service, many of them no doubt have sacrificed civilian opportunities. When the Law Society comes to fill the appointments which will be necessary under the scheme, I hope that they will give special consideration to these Service men and, in some cases, women, who voluntarily stayed on with the Services for the purpose of ensuring continuity of the legal aid scheme in the Services. They have a strong claim upon the attention of those who will be responsible for organising the scheme.
  As has already been said, this Bill is an ambitious venture of great social and legal significance. I think that, but for one or two other competing items in our legislative programme, pride of place in this Session would have been given to the legal aid scheme. It represents a very considerable step forward in building that structure of social security which the present Government were pledged to introduce.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the House will agree that this Bill has received as cordial a welcome as any legal Bill is likely to receive from a whole body of lawyers. I welcome that fact. I am glad the Bill has received such a general welcome, although I am sorry that its appearance has, for reasons which I can well understand, been delayed until now. As far as I am concerned this is—certainly in one respect—a remarkable Bill. It is one of the few Bills introduced by this Government to which I can give almost unqualified support. Indeed, if I did not do so, I should really be denying my one-twentieth share in the paternity of this Measure.
  I hope that hon. Members will not seek to make the introduction and passage of this Measure an occasion for party propaganda. Credit is, it is true, due to the Government for introducing this Bill; we could not. But this Bill emanates from the action of Lord Simon in appointing the Rushcliffe Committee, and from the unanimous report of that widely representative Committee on which I had the honour to serve. I can say with confidence that had we on this side been

  1309
  the Government since 1945, we would certainly have introduced a Measure of this sort at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, while the Government can be congratulated upon using Government time for the introduction of this Bill, I hope that the congratulations of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) will go no further than that.
  I have no doubt that my former colleagues on the Rushcliffe Committee will be gratified by the reception which the result of their many hours of labour has received today. We worked in great harmony. I have no doubt also that Lord Rushcliffe will be pleased by the tribute paid to him by my right hon. and learned Friend. The debt of those of us on that Committee to Lord Rushcliffe was a great one. His able chairmanship contributed much to the harmony of our activity and to the unanimity of the result. It is not to be expected that a scheme of this magnitude, though generally welcomed, should not come in for some general criticisms, and I propose to say a few words on them. We shall, of course, have an opportunity of discussing them in full in Committee, and I trust that during the Committee stage we shall make some improvements in this Measure.
  The first big problem which the Rushcliffe Committee had to face, and which this House has to face, was one of definition—the question of determining what section of the community should be entitled to receive aid from the State in respect of litigation. There are two alternatives. One is to fix a ceiling below which anyone can obtain legal aid free of charge. That ceiling must be entirely arbitrary, and will result in many anomalies between the people just below the ceiling and the people just above it. Of course, the existing poor persons procedure system is based on the principle of a ceiling below which legal aid is provided and above which there is no legal aid. The alternative is the provision of assistance involving a contribution from the litigant. We recommended that there should be no contribution from the litigant if his net income and his net capital were below certain figures and that he should be required to assist towards the cost of his litigation if his net income and net capital were above those figures but below certain ceilings.
  1310
  We decided in favour of that alternative and I am glad that the principle has been accepted by the Government. The difficulty arises, once that alternative has been accepted, of fixing the limits below which there is to be free legal aid and above which assistance is not to be given. I note that the Government have substantially accepted our recommendations as to those limits, but, in passing, I welcome their intention to increase the amount of capital which can be disregarded. The sum put into this Bill for that purpose is higher than we, in the light of the evidence given to us, thought it practicable and possible to recommend. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) was right in saying that after the Financial Resolution has been passed it will not be open to us to amend these limits in the course of our discussions in Committee. Views may differ as to those limits and the rightness of the level at which they have been fixed, but this scheme breaks new ground, entirely fresh ground, and I think it is right to start with those limits; they can easily be amended by a short Bill in the light of our experience in the working of this scheme. It is better to do it that way, in my opinion, than to do it by regulation.
  Another danger one has to guard against in a Measure of this sort is that the scheme may be abused, for it would be utterly wrong that public money should be used to support frivolous. vexatious and trumpery litigation. I consider the fact that in a wide range of cases the litigant himself will be called upon to make some contribution is in itself a deterrent, which should not be disregarded, against the commencing of such actions. The other effective safeguard is contained in Clause 1 (6). It states that legal aid shall not be given unless there are
  "reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to"
  the action and that it can be refused if it appears unreasonable that legal aid should be given in the particular circumstances of the case.
  The operation of that safeguard will rest with the local committees. My right hon. and learned Friend said, and rightly said, that they form the critical point of this whole scheme. On them a great

  1311
  responsibility will rest. In my view it is right, having regard to the questions which the local committee will have to determine, that the local committee should consist entirely of lawyers. I think there was great force in the arguments put forward so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White); bearing in mind that that committee will have to say whether there are reasonable grounds for bringing the action, it is desirable that it should be confined to professional gentlemen who are accustomed to, and expert in, making decisions upon that point.
  I think it is right that the assessment of the means of the individual should not be made by that committee but should be made by the National Assistance Board. If I understood the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) correctly, she was pleased that the National Assistance Board had been brought in to deal with this function. On the Rushcliffe Committee we thought, after careful consideration, that they would do it best, with least errors and least hardship, and I feel sure that this House can rest confident that they will admirably fulfil the functions with which they are now being charged.
  Another question which has aroused great discusion today is the question of the courts in which legal aid should be obtainable. The Attorney-General in moving the Second Reading said that tribunals should be excluded from the operation of this Bill, at any rate in the first place, on the ground that there are many tribunals where people are not normally now represented either by a member of the Bar or by a solicitor, and that to include representation at tribunals would overburden the whole scheme and prevent its effective operation. Frankly, I do not share that view. I think that in setting up a scheme of this sort it is wrong to deny assistance to an individual who has to come before a tribunal whose decision as to his conduct may affect not only his character and reputation but also the future of himself and his family. I think there ought to be power to give a man who should be represented before such a tribunal legal assistance where his means
  1312
  are the limits stated in this Bill. I should like to see tribunals included as the Rushcliffe Report recommended, though perhaps it might be advisable to say that with regard to representation at tribunals the certificate should not be given by the local committee but by the area committee. If the area committee and the local committee do their work properly I should not have thought that the inclusion of tribunals would have led to the presence of lawyers at such tribunals more frequently in the future than in the past.
  I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in his observations with regard to town and country planning inquiries. We have had little experience of those inquiries under the 1947 Act; we are just at the beginning. But I feel sure that we shall find many people of small means gravely affected by the plans made under that Measure. I should like this Bill to contain the power to provide them with some amount of legal assistance—subject, as I say, to sufficient safeguards. I think that we could devise those safeguards.
  Mr. Keenan: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman give some indication as to where he would draw a line? What limit would he suggest? He is going very wide.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was saying that the limit would be the exercise by, say, the area committee of their discretion not to grant a certificate except where it was reasonable for the man to be represented before the tribunal. Under the Clause to which I referred the House they have ample power to refuse a certificate where it would be unreasonable in the circumstances to grant it. I am not impressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that we might well get diversity of decision between the local committees. The hon. Member for Maldon, I think, dealt adequately with that argument. We are bound to get a certain amount of diversity of decision between local committees. I believe it is unavoidable. I do not think it matters, but it is a pity—and this is one of my few criticisms of this Measure—that in this respect the Government have departed from the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee.

  1313
  One other respect in which they have departed from the Rushcliffe Report is by the exclusion of legal aid in cases of libel and slander and breach of promise. I thought that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool was, indeed, on a good point when she said that at least legal aid ought to be available to the defendant in a defamation action. I think that point is quite unanswerable. But I would go further. While agreeing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the vast majority of libel and breach of promise actions are trumpery in character, I would go further and suggest the retention of the power of giving legal assistance in the minority of cases where legal assistance was required.
  In my belief, the local committees, if they function properly—and I would trust them to operate properly—should be an adequate safeguard against the bringing of that sort of trumpery action with public money. If it is not thought that the local committees are adequate for that purpose, then I think we could well say that the decision to grant legal aid in libel actions and in breach of promise actions ought not to be made by local committees, but by area committees. That, I think, would be a sufficient safeguard. I did agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in no circumstances should legal aid be given to common informers to bring their actions.
  The only departure in this Bill and in the Rushcliffe Report from the principle of the assisted litigant comes in relation to legal aid in the criminal courts. The hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) seemed to me to be rather confused by reason of the alteration that this Bill proposes in the existing procedure in criminal courts. It is quite clear that under this Bill legal advice may be obtained in England on any branch of the English law. We did not recommend in our Report any alteration—any very big alteration—of the poor persons' procedure in the criminal courts. We did stress the desirability of bringing to the knowledge of the public the facilities available, and I was somewhat alarmed and distressed to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman), who, I regret to see, is no longer in his place, to the effect that the exhortations in our
  1314
  Report of 1945 on that matter have still not been complied with in 1948. It may be that, contrasting the legal aid available in the criminal courts with the legal aid available in the civil courts after this Bill becomes an Act, the comment may be made that aid is too readily available at the State expense in the criminal courts and not sufficiently readily available in the civil courts. Whether that comment will be made or not one does not know, but if it is made, I think the error in favour of aid in the criminal courts—if there has to be an error—is an error on the right side. It may well be that when this scheme comes into operation we shall have to look at the whole procedure of legal aid in criminal courts again.
  I now turn to the legal advice provisions of this Bill. I should like to have from the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate an answer to a few questions which, I think, are, perhaps, a little more than Committee points. Under Clause 6 legal advice is to be provided for members of the Forces. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said very much about that Clause. It certainly formed no part of the considerations of the Rushcliffe Committee because it was not within our terms of reference. It is stated in Subsection (3) that in the case of a member of the Forces legal advice shall include advice on the law of any part of the United Kingdom. As a practical matter I should be rather interested to know how that is to be carried out, for there are many Scotsmen who are competent to express opinions on the law of England, but it would not be very easy, I think, to find members of the English Bar who felt themselves in any degree competent for a fee of half a crown or less to express any opinion of any value on the law of Scotland. It gets a little more complicated than that, because when a member of the Forces is overseas, unless regulations otherwise provide, he is entitled to legal advice on the law of any country or territory in which he is serving. I should be rather interested to know how that is to be operated. Does it mean that when troops go out to Malaya, a hasty search has to be made for people who will accompany them and be able to advise not only as to the law in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also as to the law

  1315
  in Malaya? We ought to be told a little about that matter.
  It is unfortunate, in this connection, that we should not have had available for our consideration before the Second Reading of this Bill the Report of the Courts Martial Committee. We know that the Secretary of State for War has had that Report in his possession since May this year. This House has not had an opportunity of seeing it yet, and it may well be that when we do see it we may want to adapt this Bill to the content of the Report. This Bill merely provides for legal advice to members of the Forces, but it may be that after we see that Report we may feel that not only should there be legal advice, but perhaps, in some cases, legal aid slightly different from the legal aid that has been provided heretofore to an accused before a court martial. It is unfortunate that so much time has elapsed without our being able to see the content of that Report.
  I am glad that in the course of our Debate today it has not been suggested that this Bill is for the benefit of the lawyers; indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Brigadier Medlicott) rather complained that it is a Bill that imposes hardship on lawyers, in that lawyers were only to obtain 85 per cent. of what the taxing master thought was the proper charge for the services they had rendered. The legal profession, both sections of it, have done a great deal in the past to assist poor persons who get into difficulties with the law. That is a matter in which the profession can take, and should take, great pride. When this Bill becomes an Act, they will have sufficient opportunities of serving the community, in particular on the local and area committees, and it is right that in this particular category of work they should be asked to undertake it at less than their normal fees. It is to be noted, if the case is one of assisted litigation, that the unassisted litigant will be liable to pay the full costs, even though counsel and solicitors do not obtain their full fees for their own use, and that the Legal Aid Fund will benefit to the extent of 15 per cent. This Bill should certainly have its Second Reading, and I hope it will reach the Statute Book before the next General Election. Each political party should take pride in the work that has been done to bring this
  1316
  Bill forward. I hope it will go far to meet a long-felt want, and that it will be found to contain adequate safeguards against abuse.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who introduced this Bill, would wish me to begin by thanking hon. Members for the extremely co-operative spirit in which they have received the Bill, no matter in what quarter of the House they sit. There has been a certain amount of criticism, but it has all been helpful. I need not fear contradiction in saying that the Bill as a whole is welcomed by hon. Members. Naturally, with a Bill like this a great many points have been raised which will be more suitably dealt with in Committee, but there are some of considerable substance. In winding up this Debate, I shall try to avoid getting caught up in a mass of technical details, and confine my remarks to the matters of substance.
  Perhaps I may begin by saying a few words about Part II of the Bill, which deals with aid in criminal proceedings, because that is the part with which the Department I represent is most directly connected. I do not think I need take up much of the time of the House in discussing that part, because not a great deal has been said about it in the Debate. The Rushcliffe Committee found that the existing system in criminal proceedings was a good deal less unsatisfactory than the system in civil cases, and their recommendations were correspondingly less drastic. I think I am right in saying that, either in this Bill or in some cases by circular issued already from the Home Office, we have substantially met all the recommendations made by the Rushcliffe Committee with regard to criminal proceedings.
  The only general criticism of this part of the Bill came from my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman). He suggested that even under the Bill aid would be granted far too infrequently in criminal cases. I am not quite sure what provisions he thought would require to be inserted in the Bill in order to deal with the situation. If I remember aright, he said that if it were considered to be in the interest of the public to prosecute a man it was in almost all cases equally in the public

  1317
  interest that a man should be properly defended. I do not think one would dissent from that, and, indeed, in the Clause which will now govern the discretion of the courts for the granting of aid it is substantially covered, because the only criterion they have to consider is whether it is desirable in the interests of justice that there should be legal aid. I do not think one could go further than that, unless one were going to say that automatically in all cases there should be free legal aid. That seems to be an absurdity, because there are a number of cases where legal aid is clearly unnecessary. I doubt whether we could put in a wider phrase in the Bill than we have put in, and I can assure the House that the advice to those who are responsible for exercising discretion will certainly indicate that it is the intention that that aid should be freely granted.
  Several hon. Members were anxious that the right to free legal aid should include the right to have such aid even though a man had pleaded guilty and there was nothing remaining to discuss except the plea in mitigation of the sentence. I am authorised to say that this is a matter with which the Government are in full sympathy, and we are very willing to try to find a suitable form of words which would cover that for insertion in the Bill at a later stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington also suggested that it was necessary to have a much more scientific method for the assessment of need in criminal cases—something comparable to the set-up on the civil side, that is to say, by the National Assistance Board. I think that that would be administratively impossible, because of the time factor. It is essential that there should be quick estimates, and the method must necessarily be much more rough and ready on the criminal side. I am not aware, in cases where legal aid has been refused, that it has in any substantial number of cases been refused because the courts took too strict a view of the means of the applicant. It is probably much more often upon other considerations, related to the issue involved in the case, that they err on the side of strictness, if indeed they do so err.
  I think that those are the only substantial points which were raised on the criminal side, except one suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for Chester
  1318
  (Mr. Nield). He was doubtful about whether there was proper provision for the expenses of witnesses. I would point out that that is a matter which must inevitably lie in the discretion of the courts. I have no reason to suppose that that discretion will not be properly exercised. Taxation is always a matter of discretion in this as in other matters, and we have done our best in that respect, in Part II of the Bill, to encourage a more generous assessment of fair costs than has been allowed in the past.
  Turning to the other side of the Bill, which has been far and away the most discussed in the Debate, I think everybody has proceeded on the assumption, which we on this side of the House are also prepared to make, that justice should, so far as is possible, be available to all. As the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said, everybody should be equal before the law. The Bill takes a big step forward towards that ideal.
  Where the Bill has been criticised is in those respects where it fails to go all the way. There have been comparisons, made in passing by a number of speakers, with other social services, some of which we are now trying to apply universally, sometimes on the insurance principle and sometimes wholly out of taxation. I think there is a distinction, perhaps a rather fine one, which can be drawn between the type of service which we are discussing today and those services to which I have just referred. In the first place, there is a difference of scale. Although it is true that every member of the public should have the right to call in aid the courts of law in proper cases, it is not the case that nearly so many people have recourse to the law—at any rate, I hope it is not true—as have recourse to doctors or dentists, or to aid for their old age, or to the facilities of the other services. This problem is on a scale which can be suitably dealt with in a different way.
  Secondly, the right to go to law can be more easily abused than rights under other social services. On that account, while we do not wish to restrict the availability of the right to go to law in suitable cases, I think it is right that we should have our eye very much on the safeguards which should be imposed upon the use of that right. There should be

  1319
  safeguards for the taxpayer. Hon. Members will have noted the estimate on page 3 of the Financial Memorandum. I do not think it is any secret that that estimate is in some respects almost a guess. None of us can tell for certain what expenditure we are letting ourselves in for as taxpayers in passing this Measure. Therefore, one cannot overlook the interests of the taxpayer in this matter.
  Secondly, there is the unassisted opponent of the assisted litigant, whose interests, after all, do require consideration. If the State is to finance a great deal of litigation, we must remember there is always another party to all litigation and that he may have to sustain his defence or his complaint out of his own means; he, too, is a taxpayer. We must keep something of a balance between the assisted and the unassisted taxpayer.
  Thirdly—and, perhaps, the most important from a practical point of view—there are the safeguards for the profession. I say that, not in the sense of safeguards for the financial interests of the profession, but simply as regards their ability to cope with the work which is being put upon them. Under the Bill they are taking upon themselves an immense responsibility. Again, it is a responsibility the extent of which none of us here can estimate today. We want to be certain that they are at any rate likely to make a very good shot at what we put upon them in the early months and years.
  The principal criticisms which have been made relate to the various safeguards put into the Bill regarding the scope of the service to be provided. The one which has been most frequently mentioned is the limit put upon the income and capital of an applicant. There is, of course, an element of the arbitrary in the choice of the particular figures. In one respect the choice coincides with that of the Rushcliffe Committee; in another respect, that of capital, it is more generous; but I think all must admit that it is to some extent an arbitrarily chosen figure. Indeed, all the safeguards to which I propose to refer are in a sense arbitrary safeguards; they relate to the exclusion of tribunals and to the exclusion of classes of case. We have to impose them because there must be some limitation to the scheme if we are to be able to work it. As my right hon. and learned Friend
  1320
  the Attorney-General said in opening the Debate, however, they are not really limitations which can be individually defended on logical grounds or on grounds of principle. They are, therefore, very hard to argue about effectively, but the hard fact remains that, whether the arguments are attractive or not, some line must be drawn. At this stage, at any rate, there must be some limitation to the service. This is something from which we cannot escape.
  There is really only one choice before us. Either we must have an upper limit of the kind proposed in the Bill or we must decide to have a full national service without any limit. That is something which none of us, I imagine, at the moment is prepared to face. I am not quite sure whose was the estimate which has been referred to—it appeared, I believe, in "The Times"—of a possible 12 million potential clients for the scheme. If that proves to be so, a very considerable proportion of the whole population will in any case fall within the scheme, even with the restricted limits laid down from the point of view of means.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) raised the fairly well-known case of Miss Arnot Robertson, in which he talked in terms of £8,000 worth of costs. We all know that such cases exist, but they could hardly be brought within the scheme regardless of means unless we had a complete public service covering all types of cases. His suggestion—if, indeed, he was suggesting that a case of that kind should be brought within the scope of the Bill—went a good deal further than anything contemplated by the Rushcliffe Committee or anything which the Government feel they can contemplate at present.
  Mr. Driberg: I was suggesting that it is eminently in the public interest that a case of that kind should be fought all the way through, if necessary.
  Mr. Younger: I do not want to dispute that, but I think it raises an issue outside the scope of this Bill, one which they face in some other countries, namely, where there is an appeal from the judgment in the court of first instance the practice that the State considers it its responsibility to look after the litigants. That seems to be the wider principle raised in the Arnot Robertson case.

  1321
  These figures have been criticised as taking no account of the cost of living. That is not quite fair. If hon. Members look at Clause 4 (1), they will see, first, that the figure of income is that of disposable income—that is to say, income disposable after a good many deductions have been taken into account—and that such deductions may be prescribed
  "in respect of the maintenance of dependants, interest on loans, income tax, rates, rent and other matters for which the person in question must or reasonably may provide."
  In other words, if the cost of most of the necessities of life were to go up very considerably, the deductions would presumably go up with them, or it may be so prescribed by regulation. Therefore, I think it is not fair to say that these figures, unlike the figures which were in the old legislation, take no account of the cost of living.
  Before leaving the question of means, there is the point of who should assess means. It was suggested by one or two hon. Members that the National Assistance Board was not the most appropriate body, and they suggested that this should be done by some of the committees set up under the Bill. Apart from the fact that I very much doubt whether those of the legal profession responsible for running the scheme would be willing to undertake such work, I think it is clear that the only existing body with experience enabling it to assess means in a more or less scientific manner is the National Assistance Board. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), and I think her views were echoed by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), that we should get away from any idea that the National Assistance Board is not an appropriate body to deal with these matters. After all, the National Assistance Act was passed largely with a view to getting rid of the old Poor Law and away from any idea of the taint of old unhappy things, and if the National Assistance Board is considered good enough for assessing means for one purpose, I see no reason why it should not be considered equally good for assessing means in this instance.
  Passing to the other safeguards, we have the excluded tribunals and excluded types of action. Those points have been
  1322
  fairly fully covered and I doubt whether there is much I can add. I have with me a list of at least 66 different tribunals where it is known that legal representation is allowed and I know that list is not exhaustive. One must face the fact that the sheer burden of work falling upon those who take part in this system, whether counsel or solicitors, would he very considerably increased if the scheme were immediately extended to all those tribunals.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Assuming certificates for legal aid were given?
  Mr. Younger: It would very much increase the difficulties of the committees if they had to adopt a restrictive policy. We would sooner give them a more or less restricted field to operate in to begin with. The Attorney-General gave the figures of existing counsel and solicitors believed now to be in practice and if hon. Members look at the figures in HANSARD tomorrow they will come to the conclusion that those figures would be barely adequate to give a full service over the field which we are proposing to cover. It is a strictly practical matter; it is not one of principle. One cannot deny that there may be matters of great importance just as complicated coming before tribunals as even before the High Court of Justice. But the line has to he drawn somewhere, and if that has to be done it is not unreasonable to draw it where we have drawn it. We are putting a big new burden on the free aid system by bringing in the county court, which is a very big commitment, the whole legal advice service, to be staffed by part-time and whole-time solicitors, and bringing in the area and local committees. We have every intention of expanding when we can, but I think that in the case of the excluded tribunals we are fully justified in having at the moment limited the scope as we have done.
  The excluded types of action are admittedly a more difficult matter. In particular, the House has obviously been most interested in the case of defamation. Many Members have asked why that could not be left to the discretion of committees. It could, but my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out in his opening remarks that defamation is a type of action which lends itself to somewhat frivolous initiation. There can be

  1323
  many cases in which there is a perfectly good cause of action and in which some damages would no doubt be obtained, but as a matter of common sense it would be much better if the whole thing had been forgotten. At the moment the deterrent of costs is one of the reasons why so many of those cases are not brought.
  If we were to ask the committees to reject applications for certificates on a large scale, not on the grounds of the applicant's means and not on the grounds that he is not considered to have a good cause of action but on the ground that in the opinion of the committee, although he has a good case, yet it is not worth while, it would greatly increase their difficulties. I know that the Bill covers that point, I think in Clause I, (6), which states:
  "A person … may also be refused legal aid if it appears unreasonable that he should receive it in the particular circumstances of the case."
  I agree that that is a necessary safeguard. It is a judgment which the committees will in any case have to make, but I think that one fairly substantial ground for excluding defamation initially is that it would lend itself to the type of application in which the committee would be asked to make that difficult decision. We should be greatly adding to their burdens were we to include that type of case. I repeat that it is difficult to justify the exclusion of defamation as a matter of principle. It is simply a question of where the line is to be drawn. We hope that before long we shall be able to rub out the line and draw it in a different place if our administration proves capable of handling the work put upon it as a beginning.
  I beg hon. Members, in considering all these various restrictions upon the scope of the scheme, to look at it as it stands and ask themselves whether they think that the Law Society, and to a lesser extent the Bar Council, and the profession generally, would, if they were asked, think that under this Bill they will have their hands full or not. Is it not the case that with the Bill as it stands every member of the legal profession and the resources of the profession will initially be stretched to the utmost? I think that would rule out any substantial increase in the scope of the Bill.
  1324
  I have been asked about the advice system. The point which has been most frequently raised has been the criticism that only oral advice is to be given. That has been a matter of rather anxious consideration. One of the main reasons why it was thought difficult to extend it to the writing of letters, the conduct of negotiations, etc., was that if that were to be done not only would the time of the interviewing solicitors be taken up to a much greater extent but more solicitors would be needed and much more time would be taken in visits to the various advice centres. It would also be necessary to provide them with a staff, and the administrative burden of the service would be considerably increased. I would like, though I know this is not a complete answer, to call the attention of the House to the provisions in Clause 1 (5) which deal, not with advice, but with legal aid, and to draw attention to the fact that under the legal aid provisions it is possible to give representation by a solicitor:
  "and so far as necessary by counsel (including all such assistance as is usually given by solicitor or counsel in the steps preliminary or incidental to any proceedings or in arriving at or giving effect to a compromise to avoid or to bring to an end any proceedings)."
  Therefore, if there were any possible action in contemplation I think it is very likely that the legal adviser, under the legal advice scheme, could assist the man in preparing an application for legal aid, and in very many cases he would be covered by legal aid. No doubt there is a "no man's land" in between the advice provisions and the aid provisions which is not fully covered. I am wondering whether one might hope, and I throw this out as a possibility, that that would be the sort of relatively small loophole in the scheme which might be covered by co-operation with some voluntary society in respect of whose co-operation hon. Members have expressed the hope that it will not come to an end, and that there will be a tie-up between the voluntary bodies and the new scheme. I think that that is one possible solution.
  A good many things have been said about the very complicated and technical question of the liability of an aided litigant for the costs of his successful opponent. My right hon. and learned Friend dealt to some extent with that in his opening remarks. I do not wish to get

  1325
  involved in detail, and I think this is a matter which is essentially suitable for discussion in Committee. I think that there must be some compromise in this matter. We do not want an assisted litigant, or potential litigant, to be too much deterred by the thought that even if he is aided in regard to his own costs, he may eventually find he is likely to be ruined by having to pay the costs of his opponent. Some provision must be made against that and that provision is made in Clause 2. He has only to pay what is reasonable. I think that would be interpreted as to what is reasonable, having regard, not only to his means, but also to the means of his opponent. There must be some deterrent, because one has to bear in mind that although his case is being conducted for him, his consent will be necessary for a compromise or settlement, and it is right that he should have some good reason occasionally for agreeing to settle the matter out of court without fighting it to the bitter end just because his own costs are being paid.
  Last of all the safeguards against an abuse of this system, and the most important one, is the sifting process carried on by the area and local committees. That is not a thing on which I need say any more tonight. One hon. Member said these committees were the key to the whole system, and I am sure that that is absolutely correct. It is a very great responsibility which they are taking on, and they have a very difficult task.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that the matter should not be left too much in the hands of lawyers and that there should be what is called consumer representation. It is proposed that there should be consumer representation on the Advisory Committee, which is provided for under Clause 12. But I think the work of the area and local committees is essentially work of a legal nature and requires legal knowledge. There is a good deal in the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White) and others, that if the confidential relationship is to be preserved between the persons who are dealing with these matters and the applicant, then it is necessary that they should be professional men.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: There are, of course, other professional men besides lawyers who are accustomed to preserving confidences.
  Mr. Younger: I think they would be covered by my remark that the working of these committees will require knowledge of the courts and of the substance of legal issues.
  I was asked to justify the provision that there should be only 85 per cent. of the profit costs and all counsels' fees paid on a taxation, except in the county court. One reason one might put forward is that the whole of the administration of this system is left almost entirely to the legal profession. The acceptance of this deduction from their normal remuneration is some guarantee to the public that the legal profession is operating this scheme, and intends to operate it, in a disinterested manner, and that it will not have, so to speak, any vested interest in pushing litigation under the free aid system at the expense of the State simply for its own sake. The profession has shown itself willing to make this contribution to the scheme which is, incidentally, a much lesser one than it has always made voluntarily in the past.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a lesser contribution than has been made in the past. It may be lesser in amount of the sacrifice of the individual fee, but probably the sacrifice of time on the whole will be greater.
  Mr. Younger: I agree that in the aggregate this service may be so much greater that the total contribution made by the profession may be larger, but I was thinking that so many members of the profession had actually done all this work for nothing in the past. It is, at any rate, a great improvement of their position from that point of view.
  In conclusion, I do not claim any more than anyone else has claimed that this is a perfect Measure. It is really impossible to get a perfect solution of this problem so long as there are considerable inequalities of income and resources between different citizens and so long as the cost of litigation remains high. I doubt myself whether the cost of litigation can ever be very low for the reason which was given that, after all, it is a matter involving the services of

  1327
  highly trained people. It is not easy to arrive at the truth. It is not a thing that we can expect ever to do very cheaply, though we hope that there may be some improvement. We believe that this Bill is a very great advance and that it is at least as much as the legal profession can take on at the moment.
  Litigation on a vast scale is not, of course, good in itself. That justifies the rather cautious approach we are taking to this considerable extension of the possibilities of litigation. I should like to pay tribute in my closing words to the numerous voluntary societies and to the profession who have carried on for so many years in very difficult circumstances, not to the entire satisfaction of the litigating public but nevertheless with very considerable success. I know that they will welcome this much larger scale provision just as much as do the public. I thank them in advance for the co-operation which one hopes that the voluntary societies will give under the new scheme. I commend this Bill to the House.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). — (King's Recommendation signified.)
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make legal aid and advice in England and Wales, and in the case of members of the forces legal advice elsewhere, more readily available for persons of small or moderate means, to enable the cost of legal aid or advice for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

  A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the net sums required to meet payments out of any fund set up under the Act in connection with the provision of legal aid and legal advice if (subject to any discretion of the Lord Chancellor to modify the Act by regulations thereunder to meet special cases)—

  1328

  (a) legal aid under the Act—

  (i) is not made available for persons whose disposable income as determined under the Act exceeds four hundred and twenty pounds a year; and

  (ii) may be refused to a person if he has a disposable capital as so determined of more than five hundred pounds and it appears he can afford to proceed without legal aid; and

  (b) a person given legal aid under the Act may be required to contribute to the fund up to a maximum equal to one-half the amount by which his disposable income as so determined exceeds one hundred and fifty-six pounds a year together with the full amount by which his disposable capital as so determined exceeds seventy-five pounds (subject, however, to repayment of any excess of the contribution over the net liability of the fund on his account);

  B. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses of the National Assistance Board attributable to any provision of the Act relating to the determination of a person's disposable income or capital or to a person's contribution to any such fund as aforesaid;

  C. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of travelling and other allowances to members of any advisory committee set up by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of the Act;

  D. The repayment to local funds out of moneys provided by Parliament of any costs paid out of those funds by virtue—

  (a) of any grant of free legal aid under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930, or the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, 1933, as amended, extended or applied by any other Act (including the said Act of the present Session): or

  (b) of a person's defence before a court of assize or quarter sessions being conducted by counsel at the request of the judge or chairman of the court."—[The Attorney-General.]

  Mr. Royle: I apologise to the Committee for rising at this time, but I want to express my concern about a matter which has been dealt with several times today during the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, and one to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred in his reply. I want to draw the attention of the Committee—
  The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to repeat arguments on the Money Resolution which have been advanced on Second Reading.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I want to register my protest against the

  1329
  Financial Resolution on the ground that it will deprive hon. Members of this Committee of any opportunity of putting forward any Amendments on the Committee stage relating to the assessment or fixation of capital or income in the Bill as it stands.
  Mr. Royle: On a point of Order. I was trying to develop my case, and those were only my opening sentences. I want to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has just said. In my estimation, the provisions stated in the Money Resolution, from paragraph A (i) onwards are insufficient. I feel that when this Bill goes upstairs to Committee there ought to be full opportunity for discussing details of this kind in the way that only the Committee upstairs can deal with them. In the past we have had the experience of desiring to raise an Amendment during the Committee stage upstairs and of the Amendment being ruled out of Order because it did not come within the scope of the Money Resolution. I am expressing the hope that, even at this stage, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General might see his way to do something by way of compromise, or even to defer the matter so that the Committee upstairs might have an opportunity of discussing this very important point.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That the Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 3rd December, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]
  Mr. Grimston: May we have some explanation from the Under-Secretary of State?
  10.4 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): These Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, 1948, are made to supplement and amend the full code of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act, 1948, which came into operation on 5th July, 1948. Since that code has been in operation, certain small points have
  1330
  arisen which require further action. Many of them relate only to slight ambiguities of drafting, but some of them involve the failure of the original regulations fully to carry out what was at the time the intention of the regulations.
  I would emphasise that these Amendments do not in any way attempt to anticipate any recommendation of the Oaksey Committee. They are very small-scale affairs. They have been discussed with the Police Council, as they were bound to be under Section 1 of the Act, and, in general, they have the unanimous agreement of the Council. I do not think the House would wish me to go through them in great detail; there are 21 of them. Some of the draft Regulations are in several parts and make several minor amendments, but, in general, it can be said that practically all of them—I rather think all of them—are for the benefit of the men in the police forces or their widows, or the children of deceased policemen and police pensioners. I think that is true of practically all the draft regulations which are of substance and are not merely drafting. If there is any particular question hon. Members wish to address to me about any regulation I will do my best to answer it, but I do not think there are any questions of very great consequence. The regulations have all been agreed with the Police Council and perhaps it would be better if I did not attempt to go right through them now.
  10.6 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: I have no intention of delaying the House very long on this matter because these regulations, on the whole, appear to have the effect of tidying and improving. One general comment I want to make is that it is rather odd that so many pages of amendments have to be introduced so shortly after the original regulations were introduced.
  There are two questions I want to ask on them. The first relates to Regulations 4 and 8. Regulation 4 deals with widows' awards—that is the widow of the auxiliary policeman. The existing regulations require a recipient to choose between two awards. The question I want to ask is, why is the alteration confined to the widow of the auxiliary policeman who, alone, is enabled to claim

  1331
  on two of them, whereas, so far as I can make out, the position is left so that the widow of the regular policeman has to make a choice?
  The other point is in connection with Regulation 8, which deals with allowances payable to children. So far as I can gather, as the regulation is drafted, it does not apply to adopted children and it will be remembered that they have been brought into the Royal Warrant. I should be obliged if the Under-Secretary would clear up those two points.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: If I may have the leave of the House I will answer those questions. Taking the latter question first, adopted children are covered, as are also certain other categories of stepchildren and illegitimate children who were also not covered by the 1921 Act. Regulations 4 and 9 are intended to provide for the return of pension contributions to the widow of a member of the first police reserve who dies when called up for service. As the regulations stand at the moment, under Regulation 32 she would be debarred from receiving that repayment of contributions, because normally she would be in receipt of an ordinary pension in respect of her husband's previous regular police service. As I understand it, that is the point which these two draft Regulations 4 and 9, taken together, are intended to cover. I am not sure whether that answers the questions of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). As I understand it that is the purpose of these two regulations.
  Mr. Grimston: I am afraid I do not quite follow. The Under-Secretary says this deals with returned contributions whereas in the explanatory note on page 5 it says that:
  "Regulation 4 provides for an award to the widow of an auxiliary policeman who dies otherwise than as a result of an injury received in the execution of his duty."
  The wording is "award" and not "returned contribution." I do not follow the Under-Secretary. I am reading from the explanatory note to the draft regulations which have been issued by the Home Office.
  Mr. Younger: I think that, at any rate for this purpose, the word "award" covers returned contributions. I think that is the intention.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to say that I do not share the surprise of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) that Amendments were necessary. The original Order, the Police Pensions Regulations, 1948, was a very marked advance. It was introduced very soon after the Police Pensions Bill. It incorporated a number of concessions which were made by the Home Secretary to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) and myself in the Debate on the Third Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill, and this was a very welcome improvement. These concessions were exceedingly complicated. Most of these amendments are purely clarifying and provide minor improvements which have been found necessary, but there is one point on which I am not clear, and I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could clear my mind on this.
  The amendment in Regulation 5 of the draft regulations which we are now considering and a similar amendment later on relating to orphans' pensions provides that two pensions shall not be paid in the same case. It excludes the widow from receiving benefit when she is receiving benefit under the National Insurance Act or the Old Age Pensions Act, and so on. It also excludes her from benefit in respect of any naval or military grant during the currency of such payment and in respect of any payment under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. I am referring to Regulation 5 of the new regulations amending Regulation 18 of the old regulations. It states in another form what was incorporated there. There are similar provisions amending Part III of the third schedule of the original regulations.
  The only question I want to put is this. It seems to me that there may be cases where benefits payable under the Naval, Military or Air Force Fund or benefits payable under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, might be less than a widow would be entitled to, if she elected to come under this regulation. If that be so, has the widow the right to elect to have the higher sum? It seems clear to me that not in every case is she entitled to 26s. a week which is the minimum which a widow would get, and certainly not entitled to 7s. 6d. or 12s. 6d. a week which

  1333
  she would get under the family allowances regulations.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: With the leave of the House, I will say a word on the first of my hon. Friend's points. His second point was delivered at such a speed and contained so many complications that it is too much for me. I will try to let my hon. Friend have an answer to that point at rather more leisure. I am afraid that I really cannot cope with that here and now.
  As regards the first point, the purpose is to remedy a small defect. This applies not only to Regulation 5 but also to 3 (1). The purpose is to remedy a small defect whereby police authorities would have been debarred from granting a pension or an increase of pension solely because the widow is receiving a grant in respect of the death of some person other than her husband. It might be someone receiving an amount in respect of a son. It was never intended that because a widow was receiving a grant in respect of somebody other than her husband, she should be debarred from the pension or the increase. It was only intended to apply where she was receiving a pension in respect of a deceased husband. The purpose of this draft regulation is to remedy that situation.
  10.15 p.m.
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  "That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, made by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Police Pensions Act, 1948, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 3rd December be approved."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
  Commander Galbraith: I should like to know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has anything to say other than that which we have already heard in respect of the English Draft Regulations
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The Scottish regulations bring about exactly the same changes as the English regulations. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has already said, the regulations merely clarify the position in many cases and bring in one or two people who were not brought in by the earlier regulations. There are certain categories of children who have already been referred to. I do
  1334
  not think I should say anything further in amplification of what has already been said. I might just add that in accordance with the provisions of the Act, these regulations have been considered by the Scottish Police Council and unanimously accepted by the Council.

  APPROVED SOCIETY EMPLOYEES (COMPENSATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Draft National Insurance (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 29th November, be approved."—[Mr. Steele.]
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Law: These draft regulations fulfil the pledge which is in Section 67 of the National Insurance Act, that the full-time employees of approved societies and so on will receive adequate compensation for any loss they may suffer as a result of the Act. On the whole, the draft regulations do seem to be a reasonable fulfilment of the undertaking in the Act. However, there are one or two points on which I would seek enlightenment, and there are one or two points where, I think, the regulations could be improved.
  The first point to which I would direct the attention of the Minister is Regulation 7, in which it is laid down,
  "No compensation shall be payable in respect of a loss of less than two and one half per cent. of a claimant's net emoluments or a loss of pension rights less than those derived from two and one half per cent. of his net emoluments."
  It is very difficult to see why that limit is set. The only conceivable reason that I can think of is that the administrative burden of settling small claims of this kind would be so great as to be unjustified. If that is the argument, I suggest to the Minister that the administrative burden really arises out of the inquiry and not the settlement, and that, as the inquiry has to be made in any case, it is very difficult to see why compensation cannot be made even for a small amount, if compensation is due.
  The next point that I should like to put to the Minister arises out of Regulations 12 and 15. Regulation 12 deals with the conditions under which interim compensation may be awarded, and Regulation 15 with the conditions under which permanent compensation, if that is

  1335
  the right phrase, can be awarded. Under both these regulations the Minister has to consider whether the claimant has unreasonably refused alternative employment. I do not think that any one would dispute the merits of that provision. Obviously, if a claimant has unreasonably refused alternative employment he ought not to get compensation. What I do not think is clear from the regulation is, what, in fact, constitutes an unreasonable refusal? Paragraph (7) of Regulation 12 lays down that,
  "…. regard shall be had to the duties and conditions generally applying to persons in the rank or grade in which employment was offered to the claimant …."
  That would seem to imply that if a claimant was offered duties out of keeping with his previous grade and experience and capabilities he would not be unreasonable if he refused such employment. However, then it goes on to say that,
  "… . it shall not be deemed to be a reasonable ground for refusing alternative State employment that he would have been required to perform different work from that which he formerly performed …."
  It is not very clear—to me, at any rate—what under that paragraph reasonable grounds for refusing employment would be, or what would be unreasonable grounds. There is another matter of doubt in the same paragraph. If the claimant is required to transfer to some other place of work in Great Britain the refusal to do so would be deemed to be unreasonable. I think the House will agree that it would be unreasonable, but if, on the other hand, a claimant is obliged to transfer to some other part of Great Britain, is there any provision made for his refusal because he received no compensation for the cost of removal, which might be very great indeed?
  There is one other point that arises out of Regulation 12. Under this regulation interim compensation is paid and shall continue for three months. I assume that the purpose of interim compensation is to hold the gap, as it were, until the permanent compensation has been assessed. Under Regulation 13,
  "The Minister shall, as soon as practicable, fix the amount of permanent compensation."
  What puzzles me is what happens if the three months have expired and it is not practicable to fix the amount of perman-
  1336
  ent compensation. Is the claimant just left in the air?
  Finally, there is one point of substance on the question of superannuation. I think that some of the approved societies had superannuation schemes that made provision for the widows and dependants of their employees, but as far as I can make out, there is no such provision in these draft regulations. Am I right in that, or is it possible that some provision is made under Regulation 24 in regard to the discretion of the Minister to award lump sums? I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some information on the points I have raised.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: I agree that these regulations have been broadly agreed with the representatives of those concerned, and that they are satisfactory to them; therefore, they are naturally satisfactory to me. At the same time, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that these regulations are not easy to understand. He has had the advantage, if it could be so described, of having gone through the Bill with them, and has almost cohabited with them for a number of weeks and months past. Perhaps there is advantage in hearing of the difficulties that come from a completely fresh mind that has considered these regulations for the first time and has tried to visualise how they will work out. There are, therefore, a number of questions I should like to ask, and it may be of advantage to those affected by the operation of these regulations if an explanation from the Minister is on record.
  In the first place, in the explanatory note to which we turn in the hope of understanding the draftsmen's phraseology, we find reference to 5th July, 1948, which was the appointed day for this new legislation to come into effect. When we turn to Regulation 2, we find two periods during which a claimant for compensation can refer as periods in which he was employed, and no reference to the appointed day. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how it is that these two periods are related to the appointed day, which is referred to in the explanatory note.
  In the second place, I wish to ask why these particular periods, from 5th July, 1940, to 31st July, 1946, and from 1st August, 1944, to 31st July, 1946, have

  1337
  been selected for this purpose. I am sure it has been done in order to enable different categories of workers to base their claims upon a period when they were in work, but, on the face of it, it is not apparent why these periods that are not consecutive have been chosen.
  Then we come to Regulation 2 which says in paragraph (1,a), on the question of employment:
  "by an approved society or by some other body … administering the affairs of an approved society."
  I do not know what other body would be administering the affairs of an approved society, because, as I understand it, under the National Health Act, 1911, approved societies were separated from the friendly societies. I am not clear at all as to what other bodies then would administer the affairs of an approved society if it were not, in fact, an approved society.
  In the third place, under Regulation 2 (1, b) it is provided that a claimant to be successful must have attained the age of 18 years before 5th July, 1940. That would appear to suggest that no one can successfully apply for compensation who is now less than 26 years of age. Although it may well be the case that most of those who were as young as that could have obtained alternative employment, I do not understand why there should be this arbitrary limitation of the age at which claims for compensation can be met. Then we come to Part III, and in Regulation 8 (4,d), which deals with war service, we find this:
  "any full-time employment into which a person entered by direction of the Minister of Labour …"
  One naturally asks oneself what is the position with regard to a person who is not directed by the Minister into particular labour but went there as a volunteer. Possibly the answer to that is covered in Regulation 8 (4, f):
  "such other employment as the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, approves in writing."
  It is a matter of some importance and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it. The whole of Part IV deals with interim compensation, and I should like to know how interim compensation dovetails into permanent compensation, which is the principal provision of these regulations. This is very much the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law).
  1338
  I go now to Regulation 16 (1). I am bound to say that the drafting here is extremely obscure. It says:
  "Provided that the said annual sum shall not exceed two-thirds of the amount by which the annual rate of the claimants emoluments after the loss or diminution"—
  I leave out the parenthesis which goes to four lines and then reads:
  "falls short of his net emoluments."
  I have tried to understand this regulation, and I think what it means is that the annual sum shall not exceed two-thirds of the total loss which he has sustained as a result of the passing of the Act. One has to turn back to the explanatory paragraphs to find out the meaning of the words "rate" and "amount" I am inclined to think that for this purpose the word "rate" refers to salary and "amount" to gross emoluments. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to deal with that point, because it is obviously one of some importance.
  Regulation 19 deals with the position where the Minister is satisfied that the applicant would have continued in work beyond a normal retiring age. It is important to know how the Minister is to answer that somewhat hypothetical question of whether a claimant would have continued in employment after retiring age if the principal Act had not been passed. Regulation 20, which has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend, deals with superannuation. In some of the schemes that were put in operation by the approved societies there is provision for widows and dependants, while there is no such provision in Civil Service superannuation. What happens in the case of the widow or dependant who, if the Act had not been passed, would have benefited under the superannuation scheme of an approved society, but who, under the Civil Service regulations could not benefit. Would it not be possible for something to be paid under Regulation 24?
  Finally, I come to Part V, where provision is made for appeal to a tribunal. Nowhere in these regulations have I been able to find anything about the constitution of that tribunal, nor do they give power to the Minister of National Insurance to set up a tribunal. I have no doubt that they are set up under some other regulations or maybe under the principal Act, but it is not clear to me

  1339
  how under these regulations, an appeal can be made to the tribunal when the tribunal itself and its powers are not defined. Those are the points which do not seem to me to be clear at the first reading of these regulations.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I shall do my best to answer the questions which have been raised. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) that the regulations are fairly complicated and technical. It should be borne in mind, of course, that my right hon. Friend appreciated the difficulties and the problems involved in integrating the staffs of the approved societies into the Civil Service. Accordingly, he set up a committee, with 14 members from the trade unions and 14 from the approved societies, to examine the question and they made a report on these compensation provisions. These regulations embody the recommendations of this advisory committee.
  In regard to the first question raised by the right hon. Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), it is correct that we have limited compensation in cases where there is only 2½ per cent. loss. It was thought that this was so small that, for administrative and other reasons, it was not worth troubling about, and with that the Committee agreed. The right hon. Member also raised, on Regulations 12 and 15, the question of unreasonably refusing an alternative job. Frankly, it is very difficult to define what an unreasonable refusal would be. It must be determined on the facts of each case. We ask the person concerned to register at the Ministry of Labour or keep in contact with the appointments board. and we are generally prepared to accept what might happen.
  The question of paragraph (7) of Regulation 12 about different work requires that it should be appreciated that the staff of the approved societies were all doing one kind of job. When they come into the Civil Service there are different functions for them to perform. It would normally be reasonable for a person who was working as a clerk for an approved society to be offered an inspector's job
  1340
  which might entail his going out and doing work outside the office. That is what we mean by that regulation.
  On the question of interim compensation, and what would happen if we had not been able to assess compensation at the end of three months, I must point out that actually the first three months is not paid as compensation. It is a maintenance allowance to ensure that there is no hardship until such time as the position has been examined. The three months will give us an opportunity to examine the position and make what is called a conditional assessment. That conditional assessment, in the case of a person who does not come into the Civil Service, will last for two years. Within that period, if a change of circumstances should take place with the result that a person's position might be worsened, the case can be looked at again, and it will only be after two years that a final decision will be made.
  Mr. McCorquodale: How does the three months come into it?
  Mr. Steele: At the end of three months we come to the first assessment so far as conditional assessment is concerned. We allow a period of three months in all those cases to give us an opportunity to go into all the facts, because it should be borne in mind that compensation does not only cover mere salary; it is for other things as well, such as travelling privileges and many other emoluments. Therefore, we have the period of three months which is really not payment for compensation at all, but merely a maintenance allowance to allow us to get the facts for the first assessment.
  The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) raised a point on Regulation 2 in connection with administering the affairs of the approved societies.
  Mr. Molson: Would it not be more convenient since the hon. Gentleman is dealing with this point, to deal first with exactly how these things dovetail in. I am not sure how the permanent compensation dovetails in with the interim compensation.
  Mr. Steele: A person who has been working with an approved society makes an application. To cover the period of the first three months, on that application we have what is more or less a maintenance allowance. During those three

  1341
  months the conditions are assessed, and then he is awarded conditional compensation. That conditional compensation can be altered on a change of circumstances at periods of six months, if the individual so desires, or he can make an appeal to the Minister to have it altered if the change of circumstances is against him, even before the six months has elapsed. At the end of two years he then comes up for a final award. The final award which is then made is not altered. We feel that it is better to get finality in that regard. We do not want a person going on from month to month wondering just what his compensation position may be. Let me explain that, first, we have the three months, and then the period of two years in which the conditional assessment can be altered if there is a change of circumstances; and at the end of two years, comes the final award.
  Mr. Molson: Could the hon. Gentleman say exactly where this is found in the regulation? Just where does the two years come in? I still cannot find it.
  Mr. Steele: I will come to that. The other point which the hon. Gentleman raised was on Regulation 2 about a body administering the affairs of an approved society. These are words taken from the Act itself, and they are intended to cover approved societies in connection with trade unions and other bodies where the parent body used the staff to undertake the work of both the trade union and the approved society as well; and that, I understand, is what these words are intended to cover.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the dates and why 5th July, 1948, was not included in this part of the regulation. It is included in Regulation 2 (1, b) where it will be seen that we indicate that the person must have been in a period of employment from 5th July, 1940, until the appointed day. In the Act itself, Section 67 says quite clearly that the compensation dates must be related to the period before the commencement of the Act and, therefore, it was essential for us to use 31st July, 1946. We have used that date. The reason we have these two periods is that many of the staff of the approved societies were utilised by the parent bodies in so far as some of the work might be with the approved society section, and some also in the private side of the society; and what we have done
  1342
  in this regulation is to give two periods whereby it can be considered whether they were wholly or mainly on approved society work. This gives them the opportunity to qualify under one period, or if not, under another.
  The other point raised was why we have limited compensation to those persons who are over 25 years of age. The answer is that the compensation is really for people who are not able to fit in to another form of work and, consequently, it provides for the older people. I think the House will agree that compensation should not be considered for young people, and the purpose of using the eight years as laid down in this part of the regulation is to ensure that compensation shall be paid to those people who can claim really to have their roots in the industry.
  With regard to Regulation 8 (4) I agree with the hon. Member for The High Peak in the point he makes that it is covered in sub-paragraph (f). It is very difficult to define war service nowadays, and therefore we cover it as best we can from (a) to (e) and put in the final sub-paragraph (f) which gives us elasticity in the matter. We will ensure that no injustice is done in that regard.
  The next point which the hon. Member made, I can assure him, is a very complicated one. I myself looked at this part of the regulation a number of times and I felt it would be much better if it could be simplified, but I am afraid that what we want to say here cannot be made, in the English language, any simpler. The hon. Gentleman wishes to say "provided a net annual sum shall not exceed two-thirds of the total amount." The difficulty here is this: if we use the words "total amount" or the word "amount," it means, in effect, we have to use the actual amount which the person earned during the last year. Therefore, we use the word "rate" here because—to use an extreme example—a general secretary of an approved society may die and the assistant secretary become general secretary. His rate of salary goes from £500 to £850, and by using the word "rate" he gets the advantage of the salary he was receiving at the date before 5th July.
  Mr. Molson: On page 3 one gets the definition of "net emoluments":
  "in relation to an existing employee who suffers an attributable loss of employment"—

  1343
  I leave out a few words—
  "means the normal annual rate of his salary or wages immediately before such loss or diminution together with the amount of any other emoluments during the preceding twelve months …"
  Broadly speaking, in the case of the vast majority of canvassers or representatives working for approved societies, do we take it that "rate" means the fixed weekly wage or salary and that the "amount" includes such sums as commission and so on paid to them?
  Mr. Steele: We are dealing with approved society staff rather than the ordinary industrial agent. The "net emoluments" means the "normal annual rate." That is perfectly true. I think the word "normal" is the effective one, because in the case of a person I mentioned his rate has gone up from £500 to £850, but the £850 would have to be the normal rate because in effect that was the salary which he was then receiving.
  The question how the Minister can be satisfied that a person would have gone on working is fairly simple. We have all the facts on record of approved societies and these are non-pensionable people. The fact is that it was the practice for them to go on working because there was nothing for them after they retired. What we have tried to do is to ensure that when these people do retire they will get compensation because of this particular loss. I think quite clearly that with the information we have and with the knowledge in our possession regarding approved societies we shall deal with it easily. Then there is the question of widows' superannuation. That is not dealt with in these regulations but is dealt with in the superannuation regulations. Provision has been made here for the person who had any of these rights; they have now been frozen but they exist for him should the necessity arise. Turning to the question of the tribunal, if the hon. Member for The High Peak will look at page 4 he will see that:
  "'tribunal' means a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service."
  It will be under that authority. I think that covers most of the points which have been raised, and I hope that we shall now have the regulations.
  Resolved:
  "That the Draft National Insurance (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 29th November, be approved."

  ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
  Sir Peter Macdonald discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates; Mr. Turton added.—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  CONSOLIDATION BILLS AND STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS COMMITTEE
  Mr. Thomas Macpherson discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation Bills and Statute Law Revision Bills; Mr. Malcolm MacPherson added.—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  PRIZE BILL
  Lords Amendment considered.
  PRIZE BILL

    CLAUSE 4.—(His Majesty's forces to which this Act applies.)
    Lords Amendment: Page 3, line 36, at end insert:
    "(3) Persons who during the late war were members of the Royal Artillery and served as such in any ship or vessel for the purpose of defending it against enemy attack shall be deemed for the purposes of section two of this Act to have been members of His Majesty's naval forces to which that section applies."
    10.51 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment arises out of the promise we made when this Bill was in Committee of this House. At that time I said I hoped it would be possible for an Amendment to be made at a later stage and this promise is now being carried out. As hon. Members will see, the Amendment refers to members of the Royal Artillery, because it would not be enough to say "members of the Maritime Regiment." Some gunners served actually in the D.E.M.S. before the formation of the Maritime Regiment and we wish to cover them as well. Hon. Members will realise that no Amendment is necessary in the case of naval and marine officers, ratings and other ranks who served in the

    1345
    D.E.M.S. organisations because they are already members of the naval and marine Forces and come within Clause 2 (1) of the Bill as it stands. They will, of course, appear in the Royal Proclamation. The Proclamation also requires to be amended in order to admit the entitlement of the representatives of men killed or otherwise losing their lives at sea from causes attributable to service afloat. I think this will cover all that hon. Members asked for and all that I promised would, in fact, be given.
    Commander Noble: Will commodores of convoys and their staffs be included as a result of this Amendment?
    Mr. Dugdale: They will, of course, be included and the promise will, therefore, be kept.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: We on this side of the House are glad to support this Amendment. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, we were concerned because, while the personnel of offensively armed merchantmen were included in the distribution of prize money, men who gave equally gallant service in merchantmen defensively armed were excluded. We have noted from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, and what was mentioned by the First Lord in another place, that it is necessary only to amend the Bill to include the Royal Artillery, since other personnel concerned are already covered in the Bill—as the Parliamentary Secretary has said—in Clause 2 (1).
    We have also noted the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance tonight that the Royal Proclamation will be further amended so as to ensure that the dependents of men who lost their lives from causes attributable to their naval service, before completing the six months minimum qualifying period, will now receive the share which would otherwise have come to them. We are very glad to know that the Government have now acceded to our requests and I am sure the news will be welcome to the widows and families of the men concerned and appreciated by them as some further recognition of the sacrifice made by their men folk. On this occasion, I am very glad that on this side of the House we support the Parliamentary Secretary.
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. Maclay: I am in complete agreement with this Amendment, but there is one point I must raise with the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope it will be possible for him to give me a brief answer. The Amendment does widen the range of people who come under consideration for a share in prize money. I want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary made certain that in widening it to this extent there were no other categories left out which might appear to qualify. I have in mind the people—they were ordinary merchant seamen—who were trained rapidly in a short course on the Lewis gun. They found themselves gunners on merchantmen in the early days. They did gallant service with a weapon to which they were not accustomed and until the regular D.E.M.S. came along, did valuable work. Has it been considered that this type of men should come in? I hope that when any question of this kind comes up affecting merchantmen or merchant seamen there is some consultation with the National Maritime Board.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think that question arises.
    Mr. Maclay: The point I was trying to make was whether there was proper consultation. I was not trying to elaborate it. I was concerned that the best advice is taken in arriving at the precise definition of the men who should be included. I trust that that is not beyond the bounds of Order, and I should be grateful if I could have an answer.
    Commander Noble: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say when we may expect the draft Royal Proclamation.
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. Dugdale: I think I should make it plain that the dividing line is whether men were under military or naval discipline. The men, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Maclay) was talking about, were not under naval or military discipline. It is also a principle that to qualify, men must receive Service rates of pay. We have to make the dividing line somewhere, and that is the most suitable one. While we would take anyone's advice the decision must be ours, and we must base it on something which will limit the people

    1347
    entitled to receive prize money. Otherwise we should be extending it to such an extent that there would be little left to go round. With regard to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), I cannot state the exact date, but I do not think it will be very long before it comes out. I want to make it quite clean that in moving this Amendment we are acceding to the demand from not one side but all sides of the House.
    Mr. Keenan: Was not the point made during the Committee stage that the reason why merchant seamen had been excluded was that included in their pay was a danger bonus?

  PURCHASE TAX
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lang: I am sorry to have to detain the House tonight. As hon. Members know, I rarely trouble them on the Adjournment, and I would not do so at any time except on a matter of grave importance. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is aware of the considerable Feeling among manufacturers, especially n the light metal furnishing industry, about this subject. He has received delegations and replied fully and courteously to correspondence upon it. I do not suggest that I can put to him very much new in the way of facts, but I feel that the gravity of the situation is not fully realised. It has now reached a stage at which many manufacturers are gravely concerned as to the future of their industry and as to whether they will be able to carry on.
  I know that at this moment I must not refer to questions of future legislation, but I have gone carefully into the matter of three factories in my constituency. I have not been content to receive representations but have gone fully into the whole matter personally, and I am satisfied that they cannot continue in these circum-
  1348
  stances until next April. Already, in one factory there have been discharges of 50 in one week and in another no employment. It may be at this moment that the people there discharged, can be absorbed into other employment, but one cannot bank upon the certainty of no depression in what is a staple industry—that of cotton. These light metal industries will be of great assistance in any time of depression, should such a time come again in this staple industry.
  Many of these firms have spent vast sums of money in converting their machinery and preparing their factories for the export drive, and they have done magnificently. This furniture has always led the world and they have done excellently, particularly in countries where insects have attacked wood and where this light metal furniture is very valuable. Great efforts have been made to meet the Government's urgent demand for export. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury knows the difficulties that these firms have to face due to regulations, licences and so forth. The export trade can be maintained only if there is a good home trade, too, so that there can be production on such a scale as to effect economies that would mean a reduction in the price level of existing goods. It is becoming more and more imperative that something should be done about the damage done to the home market by the imposition of Purchase Tax because it is making the position serious. It is becoming impossible for some of these firms to do anything like the export trade they did previously, and their factories are becoming stocked up. I hope something will be done to afford some relief.
  With regard to the tax itself there has recently been an order reducing it on certain furniture from 66⅔ to 33⅓. For that relief we are very grateful, but it is far from sufficient. In any case, there is much difficulty over purely arbitrary decisions as to what is relieved of tax and what is not. I have here a lot of orders, and I doubt if anyone knows what article is taxed and what is not. One instance caused great concern to a factory in my constituency which was manufacturing basins and bowls with pedestals. These were very attractive, but the manufacturers were asked to remove the pedestal and produce the articles in larger numbers. The moment they did that, they were told that they must

  1349
  pay 66⅔ per cent. tax, because those articles, which were for a specific purpose, might be used for another. They might be used as ashtrays or something of that sort. These articles are completely wasted. People are not able to buy them at these inflated prices, much as they would like to have them.
  There is a well-known firm in my constituency which had very large orders for forms for the waiting-rooms of hospitals. But there must be a tax on them—with the result that the market freezes up. I can give the hon. Gentleman information of other cases. I am sorry to bring to his youthful notice such things as small babies' garments known as napkins. There is a firm in my constituency which has produced a new form of them which will save much laundering. Each one has a label upon it. In the boxes there is a complete description of the uses, virtues and advantages of these particular things. But because of the small size it is said that they could be used for other purposes. There are piles of these boxes held up. These things drive manufacturers to desperation. I have gone into these things carefully, and for the life of me I cannot make sense of them, try as I will.
  There is one other thing I wish to mention. Most of these light metal firms have converted their war-time plant, after doing splended service, into the manufacture of things for the home market, using material—aluminium in the main—that is easily procurable. They were not doing that before the war. The light metal industry was then a very small one. They have applied to the Board of Trade for licences to manufacture utility furniture. That is refused. In the last few weeks utility furniture has been given the advantage of reduced Purchase Tax. It will come into competition with these people again, and yet they are not able to manufacture these things although they are using material which is easily accessible. They have been told that if they made these things of wood, which has to be imported, there would be no difficulty.
  That is the case I feel it right to put before the hon. Gentleman tonight. I am proud of the enterprise of these manufacturers. I am anxious for their welfare, not only for themselves alone, but because, bound up with it, is the welfare of
  1350
  large numbers of people whom I represent. I hope the hon. Gentleman can say something that will relieve the anxiety of these firms, who are racked with anxiety about the future. It will be too late soon to do anything. I hope he can take off some of the claws that are gripping them. Because of the season I may say that I hope he will be another kind of Claus altogether—a Santa Claus, who will bring some hope to these people who are desperately worried.
  11.9 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The hon. Member has raised questions of what he called the arbitrary decisions of Customs and Excise in imposing distinctions between one kind of article and another in the matter of Purchase Tax. I am afraid it is one of the disadvantages of Purchase Tax that we have to draw lines between one type of goods and another type and that, almost inevitably, this drawing of distinctions seems to be arbitrary. So long as we have this tax, I do not think we will entirely get rid of this problem. The hon. Member has mentioned some of the difficulties tonight and he has let me have specific cases; and I shall be very glad to look into these to see whether the distinction has been correctly drawn and whether it is not possible to improve it.
  The hon. Member also raised the whole question 6f the relationship between purchase tax and employment, both in his own constituency and I think more widely. I think he was arguing, or was on the verge of arguing, that some sweeping changes should be made in this tax from the point of view of maintaining employment. Of course the primary purpose of Purchase Tax must be to raise revenue. I quite agree that it is also essential to consider the effect of tax on industry and employment, difficult though in many cases it is to predict just what it will be.
  I should remind the hon. Member that when changes were made in Purchase Tax last Spring, we had two principles in mind. First of all, we wished to lower the cost of living on an essential range of goods, and, secondly, we deliberately sought to limit to some extent production, particularly for the home market, of the least essential types of goods. On balance, as the hon. Member will remember, we relinquished very much more Purchase Tax revenue than we imposed. I think it will

  1351
  be agreed that both these objectives were proper national objectives at the time, and, that to a considerable extent. we have succeeded in achieving them. As the hon. Member will know, the cost-of-living index is no higher today than it was at the time of the changes in taxation, although up to that point it had been rising. Therefore, I think we can claim that those taxation measures did assist, by absorbing some purchasing power, in stopping the rise in the cost of living. I think the rise in the exports of some of the goods my hon. Friend mentioned, and many others since that time, also shows that we had some success in diverting goods to export markets as well.
  I also agree with him that we have to consider the effects on employment. I think he will remember that when certain concessions were made last summer, particularly in the purchase tax on goods such as clocks, watches, radio, and metal kitchen furniture, which he specially mentioned—and I would remind him that a reduction was made from 66⅔ to 33⅓ per cent. on the last item—we deliberately took account of the fact that those products were produced in considerable quantities in areas where unemployment existed. But we must also remember that in other areas, where there is a high demand for labour and a lot of essential work, discharges of workers such as he mentioned will probably not mean unemployment, but transfer from one type of work to another and possibly to a more important type.
  The hon. Member's constituency is in the middle of the cotton-spinning area, and it is an area of, perhaps, the most intense demand for labour in the whole country, where unemployment is exceedingly low. As he knows, we have been trying by all means to increase the labour force in the cotton spinning industry, and we have achieved a rise in the strength of the labour force by more than ten thousand people over the first nine months of this year.
  Mr. Lang: I should make it plain that in the light metal industry many of the people engaged are partly disabled men who could not work in cotton factories. I do not say there are great numbers, but there are many.
  Mr. Jay: I recognise that, but of course, cotton is not the only important
  1352
  industry in the hon. Member's area. Therefore I think that, even though one may find some discharges of labour, as I said, from some of these firms in the hon. Member's constituency, one would expect that the total of unemployment in the area did remain exceedingly low. That is, in fact, what we do find. In the hosiery industry, in which one firm was mentioned by the hon. Member in the Stalybridge area, in November this year there was actually no one unemployed. In the furniture industry, which he also mentioned, only four persons were unemployed. Indeed, I find that in the whole exchange area of Stalybridge the total of unemployed in all industries in November this year was only 93 men and one woman, according to the official figures. In the surrounding areas, Ashton-under-Lyne, Glossop and so on, the figures are similar.
  It seems to me that those figures should be not merely comforting to the hon. Member, but also afford some evidence that our policy of using these taxation measures partly for the transfer of workers into more important work without any increase of unemployment, have really had a considerable measure of success. After all, what we are aiming at I think we will all agree, is some redistribution of labour in favour of essential industries.
  The hon. Member made an important point when he said that, looking into the future, it may be that the cotton industry will not always enjoy the exceedingly high-level of demand which it does today, and therefore it will be desirable to have light industries, engineering industries and a variety of work in these areas. I agree that that is an exceedingly important aim. As he knows, it is a key element of the Government's industrial policy to see that we do get this spread of employment. I think there is really very little danger that any recent rise in Purchase Tax, although it may limit production to some extent in some of the less essential industries, will have the effect of driving them out altogether. I do not think the hon. Member need fear that as a result of this type of measure the industries in these areas are going to disappear altogether.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  ROYAL NAVY (PERSONAL CASE)
  ROYAL NAVY (PERSONAL CASE)
POST OFFICE
  Overseas Mail (Transmission Times)
  Overseas Mail (Transmission Times)
  Telephone Calls (Cheap Rates)
  Telephone Calls (Cheap Rates)
  Letters (Postage Rate)
  Letters (Postage Rate)
ARMED FORCES
  Released Men (Clothing Coupons)
  Released Men (Clothing Coupons)
  Jet Aircraft (India)
  Jet Aircraft (India)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Meat Ration
  Meat Ration
  Scarce Goods (Allocations)
  Scarce Goods (Allocations)
  Bacon Imports
  Bacon Imports
  Suspended Officer, Glasgow
  Suspended Officer, Glasgow
  Cheese Ration
  Cheese Ration
  Dried Fruit
  Dried Fruit
  BRITISH FIRMS, TOKYO (ACCOMMODATION)
  BRITISH FIRMS, TOKYO (ACCOMMODATION)
  BRITISH ASSETS, YUGOSLAVIA
  BRITISH ASSETS, YUGOSLAVIA
  BRITISH SUBJECTS, EGYPT
  BRITISH SUBJECTS, EGYPT
  PALESTINE (AIR INCIDENT)
  PALESTINE (AIR INCIDENT)
  JEWISH REFUGEES. CYPRUS
  JEWISH REFUGEES. CYPRUS
  BRUSSELS TREATY (ARTICLE III)
  BRUSSELS TREATY (ARTICLE III)
  ITALY (WAR VESSELS)
  ITALY (WAR VESSELS)
  PASSPORTS (SIZE)
  PASSPORTS (SIZE)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Geological Survey, Africa
  Geological Survey, Africa
  Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland
  Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland
  Development Corporation (Grant)
  Development Corporation (Grant)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
KENYA
  Squatters' Villages
  Squatters' Villages
  Africans (Settlement)
  Africans (Settlement)
MALAYA
  Repatriates (Destination)
  Repatriates (Destination)
  Justices of the Peace
  Justices of the Peace
  HONG KONG (CIVIL SERVANTS' FLATS)
  HONG KONG (CIVIL SERVANTS' FLATS)
  PALESTINE (FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICERS)
  PALESTINE (FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICERS)
  BRITISH GUIANA (SUGAR INDUSTRY INQUIRY)
  BRITISH GUIANA (SUGAR INDUSTRY INQUIRY)
CYPRUS
  Law and Order
  Law and Order
  Jewish Camps (Expenditure)
  Jewish Camps (Expenditure)
  TANGANYIKA (AFRICAN LABOUR CONDITIONS)
  TANGANYIKA (AFRICAN LABOUR CONDITIONS)
  NIGERIA (MEMBER'S LETTERS)
  NIGERIA (MEMBER'S LETTERS)
  EDUCATION (MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS)
  EDUCATION (MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Zinc Prices
  Zinc Prices
  Forks
  Forks
  Scrap, Thorp Arch
  Scrap, Thorp Arch
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Coastal Towns (Light Industries)
  Coastal Towns (Light Industries)
  Blind Institute Workshops
  Blind Institute Workshops
  Dowels and Broom Handles (Imports)
  Dowels and Broom Handles (Imports)
  TRIPOLITANIA (PRINTING PRESS)
  TRIPOLITANIA (PRINTING PRESS)
  WHITCHURCH AIRPORT, BRISTOL
  WHITCHURCH AIRPORT, BRISTOL
  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  ROAD ACCIDENTS
SCOTLAND
  River South Esk (Pollution)
  River South Esk (Pollution)
  Salmon Fishing (Committee)
  Salmon Fishing (Committee)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PERSONAL CASE)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PERSONAL CASE)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Teaching Hospitals (Board Meetings)
  Teaching Hospitals (Board Meetings)
  Radio Therapeutic Treatment
  Radio Therapeutic Treatment
  Doctors' Remuneration
  Doctors' Remuneration
  HOUSING (PRIVATE BUILDING LICENCES)
  HOUSING (PRIVATE BUILDING LICENCES)
  SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (BOARDS)
  SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (BOARDS)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Smallpox (Vaccinal State)
  Smallpox (Vaccinal State)
  Chickenpox Deaths
  Chickenpox Deaths
  Vaccination Deaths
  Vaccination Deaths
  Typhoid Death, Stafford
  Typhoid Death, Stafford
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  RETIREMENT OF GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Vice-Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake has received permission from His Majesty the King to retire from the appointment of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod when Parliament reassembles after the adjournment for Christmas. Sir Geoffrey's decision to seek His Majesty's approval of his retirement is necessitated by his deafness, which is the result of gun blast and which has, he tells me, become progressively worse. I am bound to add that if all members of the Magisterial Bench applied to themselves the same strict standard as Sir Geoffrey Blake has applied to himself, we might have many more retirements. I know with what regret your Lordships will receive this intimation that we are to lose the services of Sir Geoffrey, who has carried out his duties with such marked distinction and with so much kindness and consideration to us all. I have been requested to make this announcement now, in view of the approaching Recess. The name of the officer selected by His Majesty to succeed Sir Geoffrey will no doubt be announced to the House in the New Year, and your Lordships will then have the opportunity of expressing your appreciation of Sir Geoffrey's services.

THE LONDON MUSEUM
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government in what circumstances the forty-two years' lease of Lancaster House to the London Museum has been terminated; what is the relative accommodation for the Museum in Kensington Palace, as compared with Lancaster House; for
1048
what purpose is Lancaster House required by the Foreign Office, which it is understood has requisitioned the existing accommodation of the Museum; how often have the Museum rooms at Lancaster House been used by the Foreign Office and for what purposes; what is the estimated cost of the proposed removal; when is it anticipated that the necessary alterations in Kensington Palace will be completed and the Museum moved into its proposed new quarters; and what provision has been made for housing and displaying the many exhibits of the London Museum which cannot be accommodated in Kensington Palace.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, the lease of Lancaster House to the Commissioners of Works has not been terminated, but the Foreign Office has been allowed to use the premises, except the basement and offices, for the accommodation of international conferences, because there are no other suitable premises for this purpose. Since 1943, Lancaster House has been used almost continuously for international conferences, including the Council of Foreign Ministers and their Deputies, the Commission on the Italian Colonies, the Conference of African Rulers, etc. The London Museum will have about 15,000 square feet of exhibition space in Kensington Palace, compared with about 29,000 square feet in Lancaster House. It is the intention to start any necessary alterations in the Spring and it is unlikely that the work will be completed before 1950. The cost will be approximately £25,000. I realise that the same quantity of exhibits cannot be shown simultaneously as at Lancaster House, but I understand that the Trustees propose to change the exhibits periodically.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, do the Government realise that the history of London is largely bound up with the history of this country and of the Empire? And, seeing that the room available at Lancaster House is already very small, is it not a sad thing that the exhibits should be moved to Kensington Palace which, as the noble Lord has just said, provides only half the accommodation of Lancaster House? Will the Government give further consideration to this matter, which is exercising the public mind very much at the present time?
LORD MORRISON: The difficulty, as I have endeavoured to explain, is that the Government have been quite unable to find any alternative accommodation to Lancaster House for important international conferences. A series of such conferences have already been held, and doubtless others will be held in the future. That is the difficulty; and that is why it has been decided to move the exhibits to perhaps not so large premises in Kensington Palace. But as I said in the last part of my answer, it is proposed—and this, I believe, is in accordance with the most modern methods—that the London Museum should change exhibits periodically, in order that there should be as full an opportunity as space will allow for the public to see them.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, whether he is not aware that, if museum exhibits are kept in store, they do not improve? Does he not think that the capital city of the Empire deserves a little better treatment than this in respect of the London Museum? Would it not help if redundant Government Departments were to vacate some of the accommodation which they now occupy, to allow the museum exhibits to be put on show there and for permission to be given to the public to go there to see them?
LORD MORRISON: I agree with a great deal of what the noble Earl has said, but I would remind him that London was very badly damaged during the war, and there are other things which perhaps are a little more urgently in need of attention than museums.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: What a mellowing effect it would have on these conferences if the delegates were able to see those relics of old London and those mementoes of the great history of this country in the place where they meet! I greatly hope that the Government will give further consideration to this matter.
VISCOUNT LEVERHULME: My Lords, may I put a further question? The use of Lancaster House for the London Museum originated with the gift to the nation by my father (I apologise to your Lordships for introducing a personal reference) of what I believe was the remainder of the lease of that building. I think that was in 1911 or 1912. There was a condition—or if not a condition,
1050
at any rate an express wish—attached to the gift, that the place should be used for the purpose of housing the London Museum. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he can give an assurance that this other arrangement is not intended to be permanent.
LORD MORRISON: Yes, I am aware of what the noble Lord said, and I certainly give him the assurance that this is not a permanent arrangement. As the whole of the exhibits have to be stored at present, it was thought better to have some accommodation, at least temporarily, where they could be seen by the public, although no permanent exhibition was possible at the present time. As Lancaster House is fully occupied with other matters, it was decided, with the consent of His Majesty the King, who has loaned Kensington Palace for fifteen years, to transfer these exhibits to Kensington Palace; but this is not on a permanent basis.

MEMORIAL TO 49TH DIVISION
2.44 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will allow the donations of relatives and friends of those who sacrificed their lives in France in the Second World War, and who were members of the 49th Division, and were largely recruited from the County of Yorkshire, to be expended upon the erection in France of a permanent memorial to honour the memory of the fallen.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anxious to do all he can to assist in this and other similar cases, as he has stated in another place. Accordingly, the transfer of a sum not exceeding £5,000 to cover the total expenditure, either in cash or in goods, on the erection of a Divisional Memorial in France will be permitted. I should perhaps add that the transfer of currency for such purposes will be possible only where memorials are to be erected in a country whose

1051
currency is soft, as in the case of France, and that it will not be possible in regard to hard currency countries.
LORD CALVERLEY: May I say that that answer will give great satisfaction in the North Country?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of December 9), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EIRE AND THE COMMONWEALTH
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to call attention to the declaration made by His Majesty's Government on November 25 last in regard to the contemplated change of relations between the United Kingdom and Eire; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, no apology is needed for the decision by those who sit on this Bench to initiate a discussion before we adjourn for the Christmas holiday on a matter of immediate urgency and of grave importance—namely, the impending change in the relations between this country and Eire. That matter was the subject of a short Government statement, made to both Houses of Parliament on November 25 last, but it has not been further debated. My purpose in raising this matter is to call attention to the terms of this statement, to ask for some further exposition from His Majesty's Government and to bring before the House some considerations which now arise.
Down to the present moment Eire, by English law at least, has been a member of the Commonwealth, and citizens of Eire have been British subjects. The Government statement makes it plain that this will soon be no longer the fact. Whatever ambiguities there may have been in Eire as to the constitutional position in the past, whatever the successive changes which have been brought about in the
1052
Constitution of that country, legislation is now going through the Dublin Parliament (I have the Dublin Hansard here, suitably bound in light green) to put Eire definitely outside the Commonwealth as an independent Republic, and to repudiate even the faintest connection between the citizens of Eire and the Crown. So far, of course, that will be a matter of the law of Eire, within the competence of Eire; and the decision one way or the other is for Eire, and for nobody but Eire. As your Lordships well know, ever since the Statute of Westminster, if not before, it has been recognised that a free and independent member of the Commonwealth may, if it desires, leave the Commonwealth and turn itself into a foreign country. We may indeed deplore it, but we do not question it or deny it; for the Commonwealth is essentially a voluntary association.
From our constitutional point of view, however, the all-important fact is, as the Government statement shows, that when the Republic of Ireland Bill comes into force, the separation of Eire from the Commonwealth will be recognised and accepted by ourselves. We can do no other. I do not want to be misunderstood, and an ancient parallel in very different circumstances might be misleading, though if the point is clearly stated it ought not to mislead. There is, of course, a world of difference between the former status of our eighteenth century Colonies in North America and the status of an autonomous member of the Commonwealth, such as Eire is. But in both cases the effect of the recognition of separation is the same. As soon as the American Declaration of Independence was followed, as it was in the year 1783, by Britain's recognition of the independent sovereign Republic of the United States, then the international status of the new Republic was acknowledged and established. In the same way, the existence of an independent sovereign Republic of Eire, completely outside the Commonwealth, will, by our own recognition, if not before, become not merely a matter of domestic or friendly agreement but an international fact.
Lest it be at all thought to be in question, let me make it doubly clear that in my view—and I hope in the view of all of us—we have no sort of right to complain if this should be the decision of

1053
Eire; and we do not do so. It would be wholly inconsistent with the true nature of the Commonwealth to do so, for, to go back, the Balfour Declaration itself laid it down, in often-quoted words, that the States of the Commonwealth are:
"autonomous communities, equal in status and in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
Therefore, the point which I wish to bring before the House is not as to the right of Eire so to act, or of our necessary acceptance of her decision to become an independent sovereign Republic, completely severed from the Crown. The point is as to the consequences which follow from that step, and of the attitude taken up by our Government in regard to those consequences.
I must say that I find it rather surprising that so important an event as this has received so little attention from Parliament, Press and people. Is the explanation, perhaps, that we are so much absorbed, and our reduced newspaper columns have been so much occupied, with the daily happenings of Mr. Justice Lynskey's Tribunal? Has not the importance which should attach to the fact that Eire is about to leave the Commonwealth, and that citizens of Eire will cease to be British subjects, been somewhat obscured? It seems to me that we, and all others in the Commonwealth, ought to pay close attention to this change in Anglo-Irish relations, and ought to consider carefully its bearing upon the development, or (should I rather say?) upon the shrinkage, of the Commonwealth itself? At any rate, here in the House of Lords we have the time, and I hope we have the inclination, to consider quietly, reasonably, calmly and with attention this last act in the long drawn-out drama of Ireland, a drama which has only too often fulfilled the Aristotlean dictum, that the elements of tragedy are a combination of pity and of fear. Certainly any one of us who throughout his political life has tried to comprehend the deep emotions which have governed the course of the Irish Nationalist movement cannot fail to dwell on the significance, and, I think, to be a little anxious about the outcome, of what is about to occur.
There are two aspects of this matter which I would ask the House to consider. The first is the question of Eire's citizenship, as it will hereafter be under our law. The second is the question of the reactions which this change in our relations with Eire may tend to bring about in the rest of the Commonwealth. It is no good shutting our eyes to these things, or being content to hope that everything will turn out all right. We all hope so. We all recognise the equal rights of our fellows in the Commonwealth. But the situation, surely, does require thought and study. I therefore venture to make these remarks.
First, I will deal with the future status of citizens of Eire in English law. Hitherto, an individual could be quite simply classified as either a British subject or a foreigner. There is, indeed, the important exception of British-protected persons, which is the status of so many in Africa and elsewhere; but for the present purpose that exception can be disregarded, because the last thing in the world that any sort of Irishman would wish to claim is that he is a British-protected person. This simple and long-established alternative, "Are you a British subject, or are you a foreigner?" is now to be complicated by the attempt to introduce a tertium quid or, in plain English, a third something which is neither one nor the other. Some people with a classical turn of mind might perhaps be disposed to add that the newcomers will be a tertium gaudens into the bargain! A citizen of Eire, although the citizen of an independent Republic, is (we are told) to be neither a British subject nor a foreigner, if the Government's interpretation of the British Nationality Act, which was passed last July, is right. He is to be a person who has all the privileges of a British subject, but is not a British subject. That is surely a very Hibernian paradox, as indeed is the alleged result of the creation of the Republic of Eire itself. Mr. Churchill made very good fun of it in a passage of his speech in the foreign affairs debate last week, and that lively commentator, Mr. Beverley Baxter, M.P., put the oddity of such a situation in a nutshell when he wrote the other day that previously Eire had said "Include me out," but now Eire was saying, "Exclude me in."
What I want to put to the Lord Chancellor or to the noble Viscount who leads the House, is this. When the Government commended to us the terms of the British Nationality Act last summer—and, indeed, in the case of the Lord Chancellor, rebuked some of us, more in sorrow than in anger, I am sure, because we presumed to think that it was not wisely drawn—did they contemplate, did they know, did they suspect, that the very involved language of that Act was likely to be used to facilitate the creation of an Eire Republic outside the Commonwealth, whose citizens could, nevertheless, claim not to be treated as foreigners? That is the question I want to put, and I think it is a fair one. Or, as an alternative, is the suggested application of Section 3 of the British Nationality Act a sort of happy accident, which has occurred unexpectedly, after the Act was on the Statute Book? Of course, if that was in the mind of the Government at the time they presented the Bill they should, I think, have made it plain to Parliament and to the public that it was likely that it would be sought to apply the Act in this way. I perfectly appreciate that Section 3 of the British Nationality Act provided for a situation in which a citizen of Eire might not also be a British subject—it says so. But the main ground upon which the Bill was urged upon us was that what was called the common code of nationality, which had hitherto prevailed, no longer applied, since Canada had defined its own citizens by Canadian Act and had given them the status of British subjects, and that therefore it was necessary to provide for the adoption of this new method as a better way of arriving at British nationality.
As the Lord Chancellor will remember, he himself introduced into the Bill an Amendment which provided that the expression "Commonwealth citizen" should be alternative to the expression "British subject." The argument about this is an intricate one, and I do not wish to delay the House with technicalities, because the broad point is of a much more general and substantial character. But I doubt very much whether Parliament as a whole really understood at the time that the phrase "a citizen of Eire," used in the Act when Eire was within the Commonwealth, could be given
1056
by the Government a connotation so wide as to cover a citizen of some future Republic called Eire which hereafter divorces itself from the Commonwealth altogether.
Moreover, is that the right construction of the phrase in the British Nationality Act at all? At the time when that Act was passed, Eire was by our law a Dominion within the Commonwealth, and a citizen of Eire meant a citizen of such a Dominion. It is both good law and good sense—and, believe me, the two very often go together—that a phrase like that is to be understood as what it meant when the Act was passed. The whole argument for the Government view, as expressed in this statement, must be that a citizen of Eire means a citizen of an independent sovereign non-Commonwealth Republic which did not then exist at all. But that does not seem to me by any means clear.
At any rate, if the Government interpretation is right, what are we left with? We are left with a situation in which a citizen of Eire in the future will be neither British subject nor foreigner, but will enjoy the advantages of one without the disadvantages of the other. The Lord Chancellor, speaking on the British Nationality Act, contended that the arrangement for the special position of Eireann citizens was a sensible compromise over a difficult problem. I certainly agree that the problem is a difficult one, but I do not see in the solution what is the essential characteristic of a compromise. Abraham Lincoln is recorded to have said that he once had a discussion with his wife about the colour of the paint to be used on their front door. Abraham Lincoln wanted blue. Mrs. Lincoln wanted green. Abraham Lincoln said: "So my wife and I compromised—the door was painted green. "I hope we all have the most friendly feelings towards every section of the Irish people, but I cannot help suspecting that there will be many who think that this suggested solution of a very perplexing problem is rather one-sided.
There is another question which presents itself, in the light of the Government statement, to which it is most important that we should have a clear and specific answer. What, in the view of the Government, will be the international status of Eire when the independent Republic of Eire is established? The

1057
answer to that question does not depend in the least upon how the Government are pleased to "regard" the matter. The Government statement—very carefully drafted, I am sure—includes this sentence:
"The United Kingdom Government will not regard the enactment of this legislation by Eire as placing Eire in the category of foreign countries."
That comforting assurance has nothing to do with the international status of the Republic of Eire. The question is not how the present Government, or any Government, are prepared to regard it, but how the Republic of Eire would be regarded at the Hague Court. I should have thought—though I am open to be corrected—that there were many reasons for saying that internationally regarded, the Republic of Eire would be a foreign State. But if that be so, what would be the effect on the application of the "most favoured nation" clause in our commercial treaties?
As your Lordships will know, such a clause is contained in very many of our commercial treaties with foreign countries. The clause is not always in precisely the same terms, but the substance of it is that we undertake to afford to the other foreign State as good treatment, in matters of commerce and industry and the like, as we give to any other foreign country. I take as an example—and I will take only one—a clause in our commercial treaty with Spain. I find that the current commercial treaty with Spain says:
"The subjects of each of the contracting parties shall not be subject in respect of their persons or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general or local, or to imposts or obligations, of any kind whatever, other or greater than those which are or may be imposed upon subjects of the other, or subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation.
The contracting parties agree that, in all matters relating to commerce, navigation, and industry, any privilege, favour, or immunity which either contracting party has actually granted or may hereafter grant, to the ships and subjects or citizens of any other foreign State, shall be extended simultaneously and unconditionally, without request and without compensation to the ships and subjects of the other, it being their intention that the commerce, navigation, and industry of each contracting party shall be placed in all respects on the footing of the most favoured nation."
I do not think we do more than what is right on an occasion like this if we respectfully ask the Government whether
1058
they are satisfied that the proposed way in which they desire to treat the citizens of the independent Republic of Eire will not raise any difficulties under these numerous commercial treaties—forty of them, I think—which contain the "most favoured nation" clause.
Therefore I ask: Are the Government satisfied, in view of the new status of Eire and our proposed favourable treatment of her citizens and her trade, that no difficulties can arise under the "most favoured nation" clause in any of our commercial treaties? That is a branch of the subject which I will leave to my noble friend Lord Swinton to develop in more detail, for the point is of great importance, and may seriously affect the system of preference—not only preference between ourselves and a Dominion, but preference as between a Dominion and Eire. On this point I will merely add that, for my part, I do not see how any sufficient answer can be extracted from the Geneva Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of October, 1947, or from the Havana Charter of April, 1948. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has examined these points, and it may be that he will express a different view later. The Havana Charter has indeed not been ratified; but we have signed the provisional protocol on the Geneva Agreement.
But, apart from that, I submit to the House, and to the noble and learned Viscount, that there are two reasons, which appear to be very serious, for saying that if the Government are relying on either of these documents as an answer to this question, the documents will not provide what they want. The first reason is that a large number of countries who are entitled by treaty to "most favoured nation" treatment from us have not signed and are not parties to the Geneva Agreement at all. I have a list of them; among them are Spain, Denmark, Switzerland, the Argentine, Egypt, Portugal and Turkey. The "most favoured nation" clause which I have just quoted is from the Treaty with Spain. Obviously, nothing in the Geneva Agreement can affect that. The second reason is that these later documents, so far as I can see, deal solely with tariff preferences, and do not touch an obligation, such as I have just read from the Treaty with Spain, as to ships

1059
and citizens. I do not raise this question with any desire to create trouble, but it seems to me obvious that before the Government make up their minds as to the attitude they will take up in this difficulty they ought to have considered, and to have come to a conclusion upon, matters like this.
There are two other questions that I wish to put before I come to my last point. The first is this: Can the Government tell us under what Department of State our relations with the independent Republic of Eire will fall? Plainly, it cannot be the Department of the Minister of Commonwealth Relations, for the new Republic of Eire will not be a member of the Commonwealth, as the Government statement admits. I suppose it will be the Department of Foreign Affairs. The load upon the shoulders of Mr. Ernest Bevin is heavy enough already. Are the Government going to add to this load—which includes the problem of Palestine, which the Foreign Secretary some time ago pledged his reputation to solve—the subject of our relations with the Republic of Eire?
The second question is: What is the effect of all this upon the six counties which are included in the Government of Northern Ireland? The Eire Government long to see the boundary disappear and the island of Ireland united. Our sympathy—and I am sure it is a genuine sympathy—with the Government of Eire, wherever it leads us, must not lead us to overlook the rights of Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. I find it difficult to see how the proposed action of Eire is going to make for an easier solution of the boundary question. The French have a well-known phrase that speaks of drawing backwards for the purpose of making a better leap forwards reculer pour mieux sauter. It would be remarkable if Mr. Costello's Government, in withdrawing Eire from the Commonwealth altogether and severing the last link with the Crown, should be regarded with further favour by the other Government in the North, which fervently proclaims its determination to remain under the Crown.
I noticed an observation in the Irish Hansard made by one of the Deputies in a debate in the Dail to this effect. The observation seems to have weight:
1060
"To argue that, by going further apart we are getting nearer together, is an insult to the intelligence of those who have been repeatedly assured that Finé Gael"—
which is the Party which Mr. Costello heads—
"desired association with the Commonwealth. I believe that such arguments are sophistry pure and simple."
It is not for us to judge. The Eire Government must decide for itself. But that is a matter which, when we think of Northern Ireland, we cannot readily omit from our thoughts.
Finally, what is the probable effect of the Government's proposed favourable treatment of the citizens of the Republic of Eire upon the rest of the Commonwealth? Is it calculated to promote, or to impair, the continued association of the other countries in the Commonwealth under the Crown? It seems to me that a most important question is here involved, upon which thoughtful men and women in all parts of the Commonwealth should reflect, although, of course, it is the unknown future which will in the end decide it. In a word, is the Union of Free Nations, which composes the Commonwealth, to become merely a friendly relationship arising from economic and social connections based upon common interests, such as we may well have with other foreign countries also? Or is it to continue to be an association of free peoples, each governing itself and conducting its affairs as its democracy decides, but sharing equally and in a special sense the acceptance and preservation of the unity which the Crown provides? I do not say that there is any certain answer to that question, but I am sure it is one upon which we ought to ponder.
It may be that Eire can be treated as a special case—I do not know. But the Commonwealth is a living and growing thing, not a sealed pattern. I agree that it may develop in a different way, but we are all deeply concerned to see that the spirit within it is preserved unimpaired. I have spoken out of a deep anxiety which the Government's statement of three weeks ago has in some respects raised in my mind. I am sure that none of us, in any part of the House, will say one word which can be construed as casting doubt upon the right of every member of the Commonwealth to decide its own course, but I wish I could believe

1061
that the way in which the Government have handled this matter is best calculated to promote that which appears to me to be the essentials of our Commonwealth relations.
It may be said: "Well, it is easy to suggest criticisms in so difficult a matter, but what other course was open to us?" Let me, in a concluding sentence or two, deal with that question. I would respectfully reply that, when you are faced with an undoubtedly difficult and complex problem, it is better to work out in detail, with the help of the different Government Departments, the consequences of a particular course of policy before you proclaim it, rather than proclaim it first and then make efforts afterwards to find out how the consequent difficulties may be met. We may be told by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that, before he entered on this and joined in the statement made, he had studied the detailed reports of the experts of the Board of Trade on these different treaties, and gathered, both from their opinion and from his own, that there was no difficulty in the matter. I do not think he is going to say that. He may be able to tell us that, before he put forward the proposal in this form, he had had the matter sedulously considered by the Legal Department of the Foreign Office and had conferred with them in detail on what might be the results of the sort of statement that it was contemplated making. I do not know, but we shall no doubt hear.
It seems to me that the British Government might well have said to Mr. Costello that they trusted that he would maturely consider what might be the result of the action which he contemplated. They would have made it quite plain, of course—if it was ever in doubt—that the action to be taken by Eire was for Eire itself to decide; but, at the same time, they should have warned him that, while, whatever happened, we should pursue the friendliest relations with the Republic of Eire, the consequences which might follow would not be due to any desire of ours, but would be the result of what Eire itself did. They could have urged him and the Commonwealth statesmen with whom they conferred to consider afresh whether Eire's position would be improved or damaged by cutting herself off from the Common
1062
wealth. I cannot see in the Government statement any indication that they did any of those things.
In reading through those debates in Dublin in the Irish Hansard, I noticed a speech made by a Deputy who held a minority view and declared that he did not believe in the Republic of Ireland Bill. As I have said, that is a matter for the Eire Parliament, not for us, but in his speech there appears a passage which I will venture to read to the House and which I think might have been very properly part of the representations made by our Government to Mr. Costello. This is what that gentleman said:
"Ireland is a small country. She has been, up to now, part of the Commonwealth of Nations. I regard that Commonwealth of Nations as a group of nations in which lies the hope of the world, in company, of course, with the United States of America. We are only at the beginning of the rise of the Commonwealth of Nations and I do not want the House to misunderstand me or to think that when I say the Commonwealth of Nations I am meaning only England. I am not. I am meaning the great self-governing members of that group—Canada, which is already supposed to be the second greatest country in the world; Australia, which is rising; New Zealand, which is rising, and South Africa. We do not know to what heights these countries will rise, and it seems to me that we in Ireland, who were a part of that great body, speaking the same language, having Christian faith—because those particular members of the Commonwealth that I have named are Christians like we are—and, also, having largely the same ideals, could have had an influence on world affairs far out of proportion to the size of our country or the number of our population."
Of course, this is a matter which Eire will decide. But I should have liked to be sure, before the Government declared their view and issued their statement, that they had presented, as they were entitled to do, this consideration gravely and powerfully to our friends in Southern Ireland. I hope, at any rate, that I have satisfied the House that the Government statement does call for a fuller explanation of the Government's attitude and policy. I conclude by saying that I wish to ask those who are to reply for the Government these four questions, which I sent to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, yesterday evening. I will read them, and I will say no more.
The first question is: What, in the view of the Government, will be the international status of the Republic of Eire; under what Department of State will our relations with her fall? The second question is: Are the Government satisfied, in view of the new status of Eire and our proposed changes of treatment to her citizens and her trade, that no difficulties can arise under the "most favoured nation" clause in any of our commercial treaties? The third question is: Is the suggested application of Section 3 of the British Nationality Act to citizens of the Republic of Eire (with the result that they are regarded by the Government as not becoming foreigners) an application that was contemplated by the Government when the Act was being passed, or has this contention presented itself only since the Bill became law? Finally I come to the fourth question, which I submit is within such limits of answer as the Government think wise and prudent: Do the Government consider that the favourable treatment of citizens of Eire, when the Republic of Eire goes outside the Commonwealth, is calculated to promote, or is it rather to impair, the continued association of the other countries in the Commonwealth under the Crown? I beg to move for Papers.
3.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, let me say at the outset that we on these Benches regret that it has not been found possible to have a debate on foreign affairs in this House, as in the other House, before the Christmas adjournment. But we recognise that this question of Eire is more urgent, and we do not in any way demur from the action taken by the Opposition in putting down this matter in preference. At the same time, we hope that very soon after the reassembly of Parliament after the Recess a convenient opportunity will be found for a full debate on the foreign situation. For my own part, looking back over a long political life, it seems to me strange that now, in 1948, our Parliament should still be discussing the Irish question. I am one of the few members of your Lordships' House who can remember taking an active part in the General Election of 1892, when Home Rule was the leading issue before the country; and I was myself a candidate for Parliament at the ensuing election of 1895, when it
1064
was still very prominent. Many years afterwards, I had the privilege of assisting Mr. Asquith in conducting his Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons.
Now, speaking as a Liberal, I cannot refrain from asserting the view that if a different course had been taken with regard to either of those two measures, we should not now be faced with a situation which is likely so seriously to impair the solidarity of the British Commonwealth. We are suffering now from the nemesis of having for centuries denied political liberty to a people who had been subjected to a military conquest. The Irish people feel that they have been governed as though they were a newly settled Colony, whereas they claim (as is in fact the case) that their country is a mother country, with an ancient civilisation of her own, with high traditions of culture and of religion. Moreover, though her population is small, she claims to be—as she is—the motherland of forty millions of people of Irish blood, scattered all over the world.
After the refusal to pass into law Irish self-government before the outbreak of the war of 1914, there was a period, during and after that war, of fierce conflict in Ireland. A Treaty was signed in 1921 under which, by a majority, the Irish accepted Dominion status. But there was always a strong minority opposition in favour of a Republic, and when Mr. de Valera came into power he took successive steps to whittle down to a minimum the connections between Eire and the Commonwealth which subsisted under the Treaty of 1921. First, the Oath of Allegiance was abolished. Next the jurisdiction of the Privy Council was terminated. Thirdly, the functions of the Governor-General were restricted, and afterwards the office was abolished. Those were all unilateral abrogations of the Treaty, justified by the Eire Government on the ground that the Treaty had been signed under duress.
The position of the Crown, which is now the one point still remaining at issue, became more and more ambiguous. Eire was within her rights in declaring neutrality at the outbreak of war. South Africa refrained from doing so only by a comparatively small majority in her Parliament. But for Eire to have retained diplomatic relations with Germany all

1065
through that war, and to have had a German Minister still resident in Dublin, makes the position of the Crown almost untenable. To what Sovereign was that Minister accredited? Was he accredited to the head of the State which was actively engaged in war against his own country of Germany? It is not surprising that, when the war was over, and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers attended two Conferences—in 1945 and 1946—to deal with matters arising out of the state of affairs subsequent to the war, it was impossible to invite or to expect the participation of the Prime Minister of Eire.
The situation, as the Irish regarded it, was stated at last by Mr. de Valera in September, 1947. These were his words. I repeat them to your Lordships' House in order that every noble Lord may be seized of the situation as it appears from their point of view.
"As a matter of our external policy we are associated with the States of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We are not members of it. We are associates of the States of the Commonwealth, but if they regard the existence of the King as a necessary link, if they consider that it is the bond they have, then we have not got that bond.…We are externally associated with the States of the British Commonwealth."
The position of the present Prime Minister of Eire is that he is proposing to do little more than to give legal form to a situation already existing.
I have had the opportunity of reading the speech of Mr. Costello, the Prime Minister of Eire, which he made when moving the Second Reading of the Bill which is now before the Dail. It was a speech which anyone who has read it would agree is both comprehensive and powerful. We may note that he does not specify any grievances of Eire with regard to the actual practical working of Commonwealth relationships. He makes it clear that his action is owing to the domestic political situation in his own country. He said, in effect, that it is not possible any longer to leave undefined the precise status of Ireland with regard to the Crown. He pointed out that there has long been, and is now, a powerful body of republican opinion in Ireland, and he, for his part, will not attempt to deal with that situation merely by exercises in what one might call legalistic casuistry. He says that the present situation may, at any time, give rise to acute friction, possibly to bloodshed, and to
1066
the need for active coercion on the part of the Eire Government. And he uses these words:
"I must admit that I recoiled from the prospect of a constitutional Purgatory, wherein I should spend an indefinite period of my time in perilous pirouetting on constitutional pinpoints."
He proceeded, in the course of his speech, to link up his proposals with the discontent of the people of Eire regarding partition, for which the politicians of Eire have long desired to make this country responsible. His position there, of course, is much less easy to understand. In what way is this Act, which is about to be passed by the Eire Parliament, likely to promote the unification of Ireland? It is common ground among all of us—among the people of Eire and among the people of the Six Counties and of Great Britain—that there must be no armed coercion of Northern Ireland. The people of Eire would deny with indignation an accusation that they have learned nothing better from their long centuries of subjection in the past than how to enforce a similar subjection upon others. They must agree, we hope, that there is one way, and only one way, by which the unification and the reunion of Ireland can be achieved, and that is, to persuade public opinion in the North in favour of such unification. Whether the step which is now being taken in Eire will promote that object is for them to consider. They have considered it, and have decided to pass this Act. If, from the point of view of the reunion of Ireland, they have decided wrongly, and so far from facilitating it this step will render more difficult such a reunion, that is their decision and not ours. They must be responsible for its consequences; we are not.
The noble and learned Viscount who moved the Motion which is now before your Lordships' House dealt mainly with the important legal and constitutional points relating to status and points of international law arising out of the separation of Eire from the Commonwealth. The matter is obviously extremely important, because it affects, or might affect, the status of all Irish men and women resident in this country, whose presence here is of great advantage to this country. Their labour is assisting our economy and many of them are performing most useful functions. I do not

1067
know what would happen to many of the hospitals if all Irish nurses had to leave and return to their own country. With regard to conscription a question arises, and the Minister for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Philip Noel-Baker stated in the House of Commons on November 26 that, after the passing of this Act by the Irish Parliament,
"Eire citizens who are habitually resident in this country will be liable for Military Service."
That is an important factor in the situation. Questions of trade also arise. There is a very large trade, to the mutual advantage of both countries, passing between the two Islands. It is of great moment to both that that trade should not be in any way hindered by any change of status, owing to the passing of the Irish Act. Furthermore, Ireland has as great an interest as has Great Britain in maintaining the strength of sterling. She has enormous sterling balances, and her dollar shortage is almost as acute as that of this country, and perhaps even more acute.
All these matters show how important it is that no sudden change should be effected which would have serious practical consequences, either with regard to the status of citizenship or with regard to the course of international trade and finance. On that, Mr. Costello in his speech in the Dail made some very important observations, which I will venture to repeat in your Lordships' House, for I am sure that your Lordships will hear them with great interest. He was addressing himself not only to his immediate audience but also to this country—and indeed to the Commonwealth generally—for he begins one paragraph of his speech by saying:
"There is one thing I should like to make clear to our friends in Britain and the Commonwealth generally. It is that after the passage of this Bill we will continue, provided they so desire, the exchange of citizenship rights and privileges. Ireland does not now, and when the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act of 1936 is repealed, does not intend to regard their citizens as 'foreigners' or their countries as 'foreign' countries. Throughout, the position of the Irish Government is that while Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth, it recognises and confirms the existence of a specially close relationship arising not only from ties of friendship and kinship but from traditional and long-established economic, social and trade relations, based on common interest with
1068
the nations that form the Commonwealth of Nations. This exchange of rights and privileges, which it is our firm desire and intention to maintain and strengthen, in our view constitutes a special relationship which negatives the view that other countries could raise valid objections on the ground that Ireland should be treated as a 'foreign' country by Britain and the Commonwealth countries for the purpose of this exchange of rights and privileges."
Then he goes on:
"These are the considerations which we put forward to Britain and the Commonwealth countries."
He is speaking in the past tense.
"We found that they on their part were equally determined not to regard the passage of this Bill as placing Ireland in the category of 'foreign' countries or our citizens in the category of 'foreigners,' but were prepared to continue the exchange of citizenship and trade preference rights. Accordingly, the factual exchange of rights that has existed hitherto will continue unimpaired."
In the same speech he said he proposed, in the not distant future, to introduce a new Bill into that Parliament to review completely their nationality law. In that Bill, he said,
"provision will be made to ensure that Commonwealth citizens shall be afforded rights comparable to those afforded our citizens in the Commonwealth of Nations."
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has asked the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who will speak on behalf of the Government, certain questions, which are no doubt pertinent and are certainly difficult, with regard especially to the international status of citizens of Eire after she has formally left the Commonwealth. Many have said that if she desires to remain a member of "the club," she ought to continue to pay the subscription, as she cannot expect to gain the benefits without incurring all the obligations. Clubs have not only full members, but also associate members, and it has been suggested that Irish citizens might have a character of that sort.
There is even a third class of membership. Your Lordships will remember that before the recent wars the Germans emphasised continually the superiority of the Aryan race, denouncing as lower breeds both Negroes and the Japanese and Chinese. Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in the most violent terms, denouncing the "Yellow Peril." Later on, when Germany desired the co-operation of Japan against Russia and against the English-speaking countries, that attitude became

1069
somewhat inconvenient, and the device was adopted of declaring that the Japanese were "honorary Aryans." I do not know whether it is possible to make the Irish honorary members of our "club." I am not sure that would be possible; but some kind of intermediate status is evidently contemplated by the Government of Eire, and might be found to be feasible.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble Viscount has referred very kindly to the question I put, but he has not, if I may say so, quite apprehended what the question is. The question is not what we may wish to do as a friendly arrangement with the citizens of the Republic of Eire. The question is quite a different one. It is: What, in the view of the Government, under the new conditions, would be the international status of the Republic of Eire as a State? I am afraid that the rules of the "club" would not be very effective at The Hague.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble and learned Viscount has spoken one sentence too soon, because my next sentence was to be: It is not only a question of citizenship in one country or another, but a question of international status. The question of international status might become acute at any time on the issue of Imperial Preferences—whether they could still be upheld in face of the fact that the relationship was not that which had hitherto prevailed under the Commonwealth. That is a matter which, of course, may come ultimately before the International Court at The Hague, as the noble Viscount said, and in putting these questions to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack he has possibly put the Lord Chancellor in a somewhat embarrassing position. If he were to review the matter judicially and express an entirely impartial view, weighing the arguments on each side, it might prove extremely inconvenient to his colleague, the Attorney-General, when the right honourable gentleman came to plead on one side or the other at the International Court at The Hague.
I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will forgive me if I say—meaning no disrespect and by no means comparatively—that it reminds me of an incident I once heard of which took place in a court in one of the Southern States of the United States of America.
1070
The magistrate was dealing with a chicken-stealing case and the witness on whose evidence the case largely turned was a very simple-minded Negro. When he took his place in the witness stand, he was asked by the judge: "Do you know the nature of an oath?"—"Yes, judge."—"What will happen if you tell a lie in court?"—"I shall go to hell and burn for a long time."—"And what will happen if you tell the truth?"—"We lose the case." If on this occasion (and I repeat, no comparision is intended) the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor makes a strictly impartial statement, it may well have embarrassing consequences. If he makes a strictly partial statement, it will not be very helpful to your Lordships. The important matter just now, I venture to suggest, is to decide on what is the right approach for public opinion in this country to the problem which has been set before us by the action of the Dail.
I would like to say that we members of the Liberal Party do not associate ourselves with the general attitude which has been taken up hitherto by the Conservatives. When this question came before the House of Commons on November 25, on the Government statement which we are now discussing, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, who is also the leader of the Conservative Party, said:
"In the debate on the Address they had every reason to suppose that the Government would resist the proposals of Mr. Costello's Government to sever the last tenuous link with the Crown."
The Government would resist this action! And the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said in this House on the same date:
"Eire has repudiated her allegiance to the Crown. Of her own free will she has destroyed that family relationship. She has, of course, a perfect right to do this if she wishes, but I cannot see why, in these circumstances, she should retain all the advantages of membership. I consider it, indeed, deplorable that she should do so."
Is that the right course to take? To my mind it is not the right approach. That Eire has a legal right to act as she is doing, no one disputes. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has reaffirmed in terms that it would be impossible to dispute it, after the decision of the Imperial Conference of 1926 and the passage into law in 1931 of the Statute of Westminster. Now we see that the Irish

1071
Parliament has approved the Second Reading of this Bill without a single vote against it. We are, therefore, bound to accept it as the wish of the Irish nation. The noble Viscount has pointed out, with great force and no doubt with great truth, the inconvenient legal consequences that might follow from our agreeing to this situation. But he has not spoken of what would be the political consequences of our not doing so, and what other course he would, in fact, suggest.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount again. I thought I made the argument, whether good or bad, quite clear. I never for a moment suggested that we should not accept the decision of Eire about her own future. I thought I made that entirely plain. That is not the issue at all. The question is: How are we to proceed, in view of the fact, which nobody would dream of disputing, that the Republic of Eire will become a completely independent State? That is the question, and it is not an easy one to answer.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: But that does not square with what was said by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, that this Government ought to resist it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not think he meant "resist" in that sense.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Then in what sense did he mean it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble Viscount will not fail to read the remainder of my statement. I said that we dissociated ourselves entirely from it. We cannot accept this as a fair settlement, as I propose to show when I speak at the end of this debate. The noble Viscount will see that I did say that we would dissociate ourselves entirely from it.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Marquess also said that it would be deplorable that the Irish people should be allowed to retain the advantages of membership when they had renounced it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I take that view, certainly; and I should have thought the two statements were quite compatible the one with the other.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: As I have said, the whole question is: In what spirit are we to handle this situation? Are we to try and make it run as smoothly as we can and to overcome these difficulties one by one, as we have overcome other difficulties previously with regard to Imperial Preference, and so forth? Or are we to say, "We do not like this. It will have all kinds of serious consequences for your own nationals and for your trade. If that happens, it will be your fault and not ours, and we can do nothing to prevent it"? Are we to approach this matter in a spirit of friendship, hoping to arrive at such a settlement that some day, perhaps, the Irish may come back into the Commonwealth? Or are we to take a churlish and resistant attitude, and say, when it works badly, that that is all that could be expected?
The position affects not only ourselves, but all the members of the Commonwealth. I should like to quote a few words that were spoken on behalf of Australia by Mr. Chifley, the Prime Minister, in the Australian Parliament, at Canberra, on November 26. The Times report reads as follows:
"He said the Australian Government deeply regretted that Eire's association with the Commonwealth should be broken. Accordingly it agreed that Eire's repeal of her External Relations Act should not be regarded as placing her in the category of a foreign country in relation to Australia, or citizens of Eire in the category of foreigners in Australia. Australia must reluctantly accept the factual position, which she hoped would be only temporary, that Eire by her own choice could not now be regarded as a member of the British Commonwealth."
He went on later to say—and these words are important:
"It may even be that, subject to certain safeguards, common rights of citizenship as now envisaged in relation to Eire will ultimately be found to afford an additional basis of association which will not merely sustain the negative position that Eire is not to be treated as a foreign country or her citizens as aliens, but also on the positive side will constitute a sufficiently close connection to permit the free re-entry of that country, to which so many Australians are attached by the closest ties of kindred, into full membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations of the future."
That view was supported by an article in The Times on November 26, where these words appeared:
"The recognition of what Mr. Attlee called 'factual ties' is clearly the path of wisdom,

1073
and it is the more justified because Eire has made plain her sincere intention to keep this recognition mutual.… Yesterday's statement is the first move towards finding a new footing for Anglo-Irish friendship."
We Liberals share that view. We regret that opinion in Eire should have found it necessary to bring this matter to a head. We would have preferred to see it left as it was. But it is not surprising that the result of the past history of Ireland, of the long centuries of subjection of which that history mainly consists, has given the Irish people a retrospective cast in their politics. Their eyes are continually turned to the past. But it has been well said that, "No one can walk backwards into the future." If we look to the future we must see that what the world needs in this age is a greater measure of integration and not a less measure. The dissolution of Empires may be necessary, but it usually—I think it would perhaps be true to say that it invariably—leads to centuries of conflict, anarchy and suffering. As I have reminded your Lordships on a previous occasion, that was true not only in the case of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, but afterwards with the Spanish and the Turkish Empires and, in our own day, the Austrian and the Chinese Empires. The British Empire, which, only just in time, perhaps, changed from an Empire into a Commonwealth, has been shrinking, and is now shrinking. Such a contraction may have similar results to the States that separate, and indeed to the world.
We have an interesting object lesson in the East now, if we compare Burma with Malaya, two countries closely comparable in many respects. One of them has left the Commonwealth, and the other remains inside. It will be instructive to see how they fare in comparison with one another, both as regards their own internal welfare and also the part that they are able to take in promoting the peace and progress of mankind. From that standpoint I, for one, regard the issue we are now debating not only from the angle of the immediate interests of Eire, nor that of the unification of Ireland, nor indeed, that of the interests of Great Britain or of the Commonwealth; I regard it more from the standpoint of the future fortunes of the world, in which for a hundred years the centrifugal forces have been dominant. We need now a
1074
hundred years when the centripetal forces shall be restored and strengthened.
The British Commonwealth is an entity which has discovered the secret of combining the freedom of all the parts with the unity of the whole; and on the globe it has been a powerful element for good, not only for the one-fourth of mankind included in its boundaries, but in the interests of the other three-fourths as well, maintaining stability and peace combined with freedom. Let us, therefore, in all parts of the Commonwealth, think long before we take any steps to break up whatever organisations still exist for harmonious co-operation in the world. Let us rather cherish and preserve them. I hope that, recognising this, the people of Ireland will of their own motion at some future and not distant time, perhaps with some different status, return to the Commonwealth, in order to strengthen this great agency for world peace and good will, believing that thereby they may best fulfil their duties to mankind.
4.10 p.m.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I rise to-day in rather a strange position, because I am not sure that I may not be making the first speech of an embryonic foreigner. My maiden speech to this House was at the time of the return of the ports. I feel it is my duty to speak to-day, because I am purely an Irishman, in that I live there and have travelled overnight on an Irish passport. I am a citizen of Ireland and, therefore, will be subject to the decisions and rulings which arise from legislation here. I am only sorry that there are not other United Kingdom Peers like myself, or Irish Representative Peers, on the list of speakers to-day, because I feel that this is an occasion which affects us very closely. By tradition I am a King's man. By reason of family tradition I am a Unionist, although I do not actually hold those views myself. I was brought up in surroundings of nothing but lampoons and the worst possible caricatures of Mr. Gladstone and Home Rule. I have served, as so many Irishmen did, in the British Army as a volunteer. I have worked, as so many Irishmen have had to work, in London. During a period when I had no family home (my home was burnt not during the Anglo-Irish war but after the Treaty, in the

1075
Civil War) my only home was England. Therefore, I hope that anything I say will be taken as coming from a sincere friend and not as an Anglophobe.
The position which has arisen to-day is in some ways to be regretted. It is the end—except for one point which I will raise later—of a series of unfortunate handlings of the Irish situation. I feel that the Conservative Party will not agree with me when I say that it is the final indictment, culminating to-day, of their policy through the nineteenth century. But I would like, first of all, as an Irishman, as one who has voted in Ireland, and who supports and takes an active part in politics (although I am not a member of an actual political Party there), to draw attention to the circumstances in which this discussion has arisen in this House to-day. After the Treaty in 1921 we in Ireland had ten years of rule by Mr. Cosgrave's Party. He had ten difficult years, in which he built up our little Army, our police force, extended our Civil Service, started our industries, and reviewed and encouraged our agriculture. Then in 1932 he went out, and Mr. de Valera's Fianna Fail Party came into power. It is always assumed that Mr. Cosgrave's Party was a Commonwealth Party. In fact it was not, because it is quite clear that the Treaty, when it was signed, was accepted by that Party as a modus vivendi, as a link upon which to build the ultimate complete freedom of the country.
However, as I say, the domestic details rather took the upper hand. In 1932 Mr. de Valera came in, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said, a series of steps were taken which slowly eliminated the Crown from Ireland. There was the Oath in the Parliament, the appeal to the Privy Council, the Constitution and, in 1936, the passing of the External Relations Act. That Act was passed on December 12, 1936, at a time when there was a great constitutional crisis here over the Abdication. Since then the only link between the countries has been this Act. The Act used the Crown as an agent for the appointment of Ambassadors and Ministers. There are many people in Southern Ireland who are King's men, and who regret that at that time no steps were taken to raise the subject over here, because since then
1076
the Crown has been used merely as a "rubber stamp"; it has been insulted on every possible occasion. It has been an extraordinary state of affairs, and that is why I personally welcome this move in Ireland to remove the Crown. Originally, I would certainly have been a strong Commonwealth man, but having gone so far I feel that the moment has arrived at least to be honest about the matter.
We in Ireland are in an extraordinary position. You can argue whether you are in or out of the Commonwealth, and whenever anyone gave an answer you could read what you wanted into it. Even to-day in this House, I have heard it assumed that we are definitely out of the Commonwealth. Only this summer, of course, there was a Commonwealth Conference to which Ireland was not invited. Delegates were summoned later, when the Conference met to discuss this legislation which has been passed in Dublin. We had a King in Ireland and we had not a King in Ireland—it was a most extraordinary position. I wish again to make it quite clear that I am a King's man by tradition. Through history the Crown has not been in Ireland the symbol which it has been in the colonised Dominions of Australia and Canada. In Ireland it has always been a symbol of oppression. That is the result of history, and largely the history of the last century, when the situation might have been saved.
I can assure your Lordships that if, for instance, there had in the nineteenth century been an Irish Balmoral, the whole attitude to the Crown would have been different. The Crown has become a foreign institution in Ireland; it is not understood as your Lordships understand it, and as those of us Irishmen who have travelled in the Commonwealth and in the Empire understand it. I would like to say that removing the symbol of the Crown at this moment is in no way intended by any Irishman as an insult to the King in person, or to the Royal Family. There has been the greatest concern that this Bill should be discussed at a moment when the King's illness was announced, and there was genuine sympathy. There is genuine sympathy in Ireland with the Royal Family, because we are a Catholic country, and our basis of life is the family. Wherever one goes in Ireland one feels the greatest respect paid to the standard set by the British

1077
Royal Family. It is something which even the most extreme Republicans admire, because, as your Lordships know, we have no divorce or divorce courts, and the Christian family is our basis of life.
The Bill which has been introduced in Ireland does two things. It gives the President of Ireland—who up to now had only internal responsibilities—external powers. The head of the twenty-six counties in Ireland is now in a position to appoint his own Ambassadors and Ministers. It was an odd position before, because we had a head of a country who, in point of fact, could never leave it, because wherever he went, whether it was to France, Rome or the Vatican, the representative there was not appointed by him, but by the Crown in England. And, as those of your Lordships who read the Irish Hansard will have seen, Mr. de Valera has said that he might as well have used the President of the United States for appointing them. This new Bill was introduced in Ireland to give the President external powers; it now also gives the country the name of the Republic of Ireland. Up to the present, we have been a sovereign State but not defined as a Republic.
Mr. Costello, the Prime Minister, has explained clearly—as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has pointed out in a quotation—that the definition was really for domestic politics. Since 1922 there has all the time been a subversive movement in the country: there have been coercive acts. Now this is the first time that we have no political prisoners and no guns in the twenty-six counties. When the Bill was introduced in the Dail only four Deputies spoke in any way against it. Two took the line that it would retard the ending of partition; one member criticised the Bill and then supported it; and one Deputy (from whose speech Lord Simon read) was opposed to it but did not vote, as his was the only dissenting voice. When the Bill reached the Senate there was only one speech against it. The criticism has been made in Ireland that it has been rushed; and there has been some criticism about the method of it; but those are local details which, of course, do not affect us over here in any way.
There are two alternatives before the Government here. One is to be quite firm and say "Very well: you have decided to be foreign, and foreign you will
1078
be; and you will take all the consequences." Or there is the possibility of mutual legislation to solve the difficulties and differences. We do not want to have it both ways. We are willing to take whatever comes to us. But there is all the time an inference that we are getting the better of the deal. Take, for instance, the question of Imperial Preferences. In Ireland we have our industries, and this country will not accept our industrial products. On the other hand, £53,000,000 worth a year of British goods are sent to Ireland under Imperial Preference. If those goods do not come in under some treaty continuing to give the same preference, it may well be that Ireland will look elsewhere for commodities.
Then, too, we have agricultural produce of an increasing amount to sell; and there are many buyers. Only two days ago, in another place in a debate on food, that was made abundantly clear by the fact that the Belgians and the Dutch had purchased from us cattle which had been earmarked for Britain. If we are treated as aliens there are all sorts of disadvantages which may accrue to Britain. For instance, it will result in stopping any form of recruiting for the Services or for nursing, for doctors or black-coated workers. It will mean that half the civil servants who come over from Ireland will no longer be able to come. The position is not all to Ireland's advantage. I am no constitutional lawyer, and I am rather nervous of raising these points in this House, but I believe—and I have discussed this with lawyers in Ireland—that most of the difficulties can be solved. They are difficult but they can be solved, and I appreciate very much the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the matter.
The subject of partition has already been mentioned this afternoon. It has been said that the abolition of partition has been put back. I should like to draw attention to one or two points. First, since the introduction in the Dail of the Republic of Ireland Act, Sir Basil Brooke, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and various other people, have said that the end of partition was possible. Well, my Lords, for twenty-six years, not one step has been taken in that direction. We have often been told "We should like to remain united," but nothing is done about it.

1079
There is a very important new aspect. Only last week the General Assembly of the United Nations, following the Hague ruling, reported back to the Security Council that Ireland should be admitted to U.N.O. When Ireland is admitted to U.N.O., the question of partition will be raised as an international issue. It will, or can, be raised by Ireland. Moreover, we must remember that, both in the past and to-day, although Ireland is a small country it has great influence, especially on the Continent of America, where there are so many Irish kinsmen, and in certain of the more Catholic countries of Europe. Many people have said that the partition of Ireland was a Commonwealth matter. But after the repeal of the External Relations Act it is no longer a Commonwealth matter.
I must make it clear that in Southern Ireland it is the intractable view of the majority that Northern Ireland is occupied by force. Many of your Lordships may disagree with that view, but it is the one which is held. It is held because there is a garrison there far and above the requirements of the normal holding of bases. The police are armed and live in barracks. The "B" Special recruiting campaign has been started again. There are Special Powers Acts. Whatever one may say, there is no representation of minority religion in the six counties—and, incidentally, it is only just a minority. There is no doubt in the minds of the majority of people in Southern Ireland that there is religious intolerance in the North. I feel very strongly that some steps must be taken soon to deal with that belief. As I have already indicated, Mr. Costello has said that we have removed the guns from politics; I certainly hope that we have removed them from the twenty-six counties. But if some step is not taken in the matter of partition—and I believe that such a step should come from here—sooner or later the young people of the North, the increasing number of young Republicans, will take the matter into their own hands. I have heard a Nationalist member in the North say that the only people who can obtain freedom are those who rattle the sabre. There are people in the twenty-six counties who draw comparison with the history of Burma, and of Palestine and India. I see a very great danger that if something is
1080
not done soon about partition, there may be civil war in the six counties of the North.
Mention has been made of our neutrality in the late war. I should like to refer to this one small point. There has been considerable prejudice against us for our political neutrality. I am not here to defend it one way or the other. I was not in Ireland then; I was otherwise engaged. However, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, although there was political neutrality—and, remember, many nations did not enter into the war until they were attacked—there was a contribution from Southern Ireland, not only in men (in respect of which, incidentally, the figures have never been given by His Majesty's Government, although they have been available and have been requested by the noble Earl, Lord Cork) but also in bombproof factories, wherein goods were being produced in the twenty-six counties at a rate that would not have been possible if those factories had been situated elsewhere. I think that fact is often forgotten.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to say that we believe that legislation on both sides, and, if necessary, decisions of the Court at The Hague, can solve our problems. We in Ireland believe that we are starting on a new era of hope of realistic relationship, an era without pretence. We are a young country; we wish to get on with our normal social developments. We wish to take our part in the world. We have much to offer, not only in respect of our strategic position on the western outskirts of Europe, but also by reason of our philosophy and our faith. In a world where materialism is spreading from Russia through China and across Europe, we, at least, although we are a small country, wish to contribute our share towards peace. I believe that in due course the steps that are being taken now will lead to our being able to do that. Fortunately, as I am sure it will appear to your Lordships, our link with Ireland is not the link of the Crown; it is the link of kinsmanship, the link of blood as parent nations not only with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, but also with the United States of America. I have given your Lordships these views, which are only my personal views. I give them because I am living in Southern Ireland and I

1081
think my own views on the matter are fairly clear.
I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether, when he comes to reply, he will give some indication of what the position of Irish representative Peers will be after the passing of the Act, and also what will be the position of the United Kingdom Peers who are purely resident in Southern Ireland—the "green passport" Peers, like myself—because I think it is an interesting point and of importance. I am glad to have this opportunity to address your Lordships. Although I do not agree with all that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, I am glad that he has raised this issue. I am also glad to have heard a speech from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Samuel, which, I can assure him, will be read to-morrow in Ireland with deep appreciation and a belief in the real Liberalism of this country.
4.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken in the curious observations which he has made about Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition will have something to say on that when he speaks in his turn. I would merely say this. First of all, fortunately, the Government have made it perfectly plain in another place, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when replying, will confirm to-day, that they have no intention whatever of abandoning Northern Ireland in any way, and that Northern Ireland's position is as secure in law and in the heart of the Commonwealth to-day as it ever has been in the past. I would only add that it seems to me it would be a most odd consequence of the happy results which were to flow from this new arrangement if the immediate consequence were to be the kind of action in Southern Ireland against Northern Ireland which the noble Lord has indicated and, indeed, so far as I could make out, advocated, if not threatened.
I rise for only a few moments to reinforce one particular aspect of the matter which we are debating to-day—that is, the possible effect of what is proposed upon Imperial Preference. It would not
1082
be appropriate on this occasion to argue the case for Preference, nor, indeed, do I think it would be at all necessary. I think the great majority of your Lordships in all quarters of the House share the views which I have so often expressed, that not only is Imperial Preference essential for Commonwealth development and mutual trade within the Commonwealth and Empire, but that the prosperity which is bred of that Preference is reflected in the increased trade which Commonwealth countries do with the rest of the world. While we consider it essential to retain our rights to make preferential agreements within the Commonwealth, we equally welcome the even closer and tighter economic customs unions such as the United States and the Benelux countries have because we believe that they conduce not only to their prosperity but also to the benefit of world trade.
But it is vital that existing preferences or the right to extend them should not be prejudiced by anything which is done or is proposed to be done in relation to Eire. Years ago, the policy of preference in relation to the "most favoured nation" clauses in treaties was discussed at great length at the League of Nations. For many years it has been universally accepted as good law and good sense that Commonwealth countries are free to give mutual preferences to one another without any breach of the "most favoured nation" clauses in our many treaties with foreign Governments. As has already been pointed out, however, all those treaties provide, in more or less the same form, that any preference or any trade facility which is granted to any one foreign country must be extended to all others. All the time I was administering those treaties at the Board of Trade, and later on at the Colonial Office, I was advised that the clauses of those treaties must be construed strictly.
May I give the House a brief account of the experience which I had in regard to Palestine, for I think it is relevant to this matter. When I was Secretary of State for the Colonies, I was extremely anxious to extend Preference to Palestine. Palestine was under mandate to us. It was what was known as a C mandate. There was no doubt that we were able to give Preferences to what were called the A and B mandates, but Palestine was at least a doubtful case.

1083
Naturally I took the highest possible legal advice, and the advice I received was that I could not do it—that on the whole, although Palestine was a mandated territory, yet the terms of the C mandate made it equivalent in this matter to a foreign country, and therefore we were not entitled to give a Preference to Palestine, whereas we were entitled to do so in regard to, say, Tanganyika. I said at that time, "If the matter is in any doubt at all, why should we not take a chance on it and give the Preference to Palestine? Then, if the matter is taken to the Hague Court and they rule that it is wrong, it can be abandoned and withdrawn." But I was advised that that would not do at all. If I remember rightly, my noble friend Lord Hailsham was one of the people who advised me, and he will check and correct me if I am wrong. I was told: "You cannot do that, for this reason: you cannot do a thing you ought not to do, and then say the position is to be one of 'as you were.'" I was told that the moment we had extended that Preference and levied the lower rate of duty on one orange coming from Palestine, every single foreign country which had a "most favoured nation" clause in our treaty with them, would immediately be entitled to claim that the preferential rate of duty should be levied in regard to themselves.
THE EARL OF PERTH: If the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt, may I say that I do not think his argument is well founded? If he will read the Covenant of the League of Nations, he will find that in regard to countries under C mandate no preferential treatment should be levied, and that every nation has equal rights.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry the noble Earl has not followed my point, but what I said was not inconsistent with what he is saying. The Law Officers gave me very good advice. I wanted to extend preferential treatment to Palestine. I am not ashamed to say that I did, but I was told that the terms of the mandate made it impossible for me to do so.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The terms of the Covenant itself.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If you please; the mandate was in the Covenant. That
1084
is not the point. If the noble Earl follow my argument he will see where it leads. The force of it is, not that I am denying that the Covenant said I ought not to give Preference to Palestine, but that if I could not give Preference to Palestine, which was a mandated country, it may be extremely dangerous to give Preference to Eire, which is now in law a foreign country. The noble Earl is no more an international lawyer than I am. He may have been a very good Secretary-General of the League of Nations, but I would much prefer to take the legal opinion of the Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Hailsham, than his opinion on a matter of law. This is far too serious a matter. Before I finish, I hope to convince the House that it raises the question of the whole structure of Imperial Preference; and unless we can be assured that there is no risk to Imperial Preference in this regard, then I believe the majority of your Lordships will feel that we may be embarking on a very perilous and disastrous course. At any rate, it was made quite clear to me then that I could not give that Preference to Palestine because, if I did, every other foreign country would have a right to claim the same lower rate of duty. The test was: Is the country a part of the Commonwealth or not?
Leaving aside the Geneva protocol (which I will come to in a moment), surely a country which leaves the Commonwealth and declares itself an independent republic is, for the purposes of the most favoured nation clauses in our commercial treaties, a foreign country, and any other foreign countries would be entitled to claim the same rates of duty and other trade concessions which were granted to Eire. Obviously this is not a matter merely between the United Kingdom and Eire. It is not that we want to penalise Eire's trade in the least—we want to do all the trade we can with Eire; to buy as much from her as we can and sell as much to her as we can—but it might deprive all the Commonwealth countries of the value of the preference on any articles affected. If there is some other treaty which entitles us to continue to treat Eire preferentially without incurring these risks, we may be safe. As I say, nobody wants to penalise Eire, but we must not run the risk of penalising the other countries which are still members of the Commonwealth and

1085
so undermine the whole structure of Preference. That is what we have to guard against.
In another place Mr. Henderson, dealing with the case of Burma, said that this matter could be effected under the Havana Draft Charter. Obviously that was a slip, because that Charter is not in force, and the Leader of the House has given us the most specific assurance that the Havana Charter will not be ratified until it has been brought before Parliament and Parliament has expressed an opinion. There is, of course, what is called the Geneva Protocol, which is a temporary agreement. That Protocol has been signed by some, but by no means all, of the countries with whom we have "most favoured nation" treaties. As between signatories, so long as that Protocol remains in force, it would, I think, undoubtedly entitle us to continue existing preferences to Eire. I understand that as between the signatories it overrides the "most favoured nation" clause. But I submit it cannot override the "most favoured nation" clause vis-à-vis other countries which are not signatories. A "most favoured nation" clause is a contract, and it can be varied only by another contract in the nature of another treaty.
Therefore I submit that we are entitled to rely upon the Geneva Protocol only vis-à-vis those countries who are parties to the Geneva Protocol itself. There is a long list of countries (twenty-five or more) with whom we have "most favoured nation" treaties, which have not signed that Protocol. They include the Argentine, Denmark, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Egypt, and Russia. A few of those have signed the Havana Final Act, but we, of course, have not ratified that and shall not ratify it unless both Houses of Parliament approve of it. We do not even know whether we shall ever be asked to do so. But there are a number of countries—for instance, the Argentine, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and Russia—who have not signed either the Geneva Protocol or the Havana Final Act. I ask, What is the legal position vis-à-vis those countries who have signed no document which varies their "most favoured nation" rights? Unless we can be assured on the highest legal authority that we are absolutely safe in giving preference to Eire, then I submit the Government cannot take the risk, with
1086
all that it may involve to Imperial Preference and Commonwealth trade. To lose, or risk losing, Imperial Preference by inadvertence would be unforgiveable. We have still time, and I submit that we must be sure that we do nothing which can risk the structure of Imperial Preference—either the preference which we and the Dominions, the Commonwealth countries, mutually enjoy to-day, or possible extensions which may lie before us in the future.
I have put as clearly as I can, as un-controversially as I can, and as fairly as I can, what I believe, and what I do not think the Lord Chancellor will deny, are very vital issues. And an equally categorical answer is required. On the broader issues—I do not know that they are broader, but on the other issues—I would add only one thing. I would venture to repeat to the House some words which I used less than two months ago in the debate on the Address, with which most of your Lordships were, I think, in a large measure of agreement. I said this:
"I do not think the development of the Commonwealth is any more likely to follow a sealed pattern in the future than it has followed one in the past. The essence has been, and surely must always be, in the reality of our union. If it were not a real union of spirit it would lose its value and its strength, both to its own members and to the world. The rules of the club can be elastic, but it must still be a club. It would be a profound misfortune if we were to find some formula which provided a façade but lost the reality which is our abiding strength."
4.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, over a hundred years ago Sydney Smith said this about debates on Ireland:
"The moment the very name of Ireland is mentioned the English seem to bid adieu to common prudence and common sense and to act with the fatuity of idiots."
Whether or not that was true of the last century—and I am inclined to think that it was—I believe that we are suffering from the mistake of having done too little too late. But certainly there has been no trace of fatuity in the course of our debate to-day. The matter we have to consider and discuss is one of great difficulty and it does need very cool heads. For my own Part, I propose to start with a rather fundamental fact. I thought I detected, both in the article which he wrote for a newspaper and in

1087
the speech which he made to-day, some suggestion on the part of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that we might have had this sort of point in our minds when the British Nationality Act was being debated in your Lordships' House.
I hope that your Lordships now know me well enough to realise that, if I had had that in my mind then (if I may use an Irishism) I should not have kept it up my sleeve. I can tell your Lordships precisely when I first knew—and when I say I first knew I am speaking for all my colleagues—of the intention to repeal the External Relations Act. It was when I read the report of the speech Mr. Costello made during his visit to Canada. How much earlier his own colleagues in his own Government knew, of course I cannot guess; nor have I the smallest complaint. There was no reason why he should tell me his Government secrets, any more than I should tell him mine. But it is a fact that the pronouncement of this policy at that time was the first I knew of it, and I had no knowledge whatever that it was to be done.
I have made it plain that I am not suggesting that either Mr. MacBride or Mr. Costello, with whom I had the pleasure of spending some time whilst I was in Ireland last August, were in any way guilty of over-reaching or unfair dealing, because they are the last men in the world who would be capable of such conduct. But that is the fact, and it has this relevance: it is so much more difficult to dissuade people against a particular course after they have announced that they are going to take it. I will continue to speak with candour. Looking at this matter from the point of view of an Englishman, when I heard of what was proposed I regarded it as a very grave misfortune, and I regretted, for many reasons, that it should be done, particularly at the present time.
First of all, I believe that Western civilisation and Christian standards are facing a peril to-day such as they have never in history faced before, and it seemed to me lamentable that there should be even an appearance of dissension on the part of those who ought to be standing together, shoulder to shoulder,
1088
to face this common peril. Secondly, I thought it singularly unhappy that this matter should come up just when our Commonwealth is inevitably going through a formative and, perhaps, transitional stage, when problems concerning India are in the background of our minds. Thirdly (and again I am speaking as an Englishman), I thought it was unhappy from the point of view of the people of Eire themselves, because if they want to remove—as I can well understand they do—the barrier which separates Northern Ireland from Southern Ireland, it seemed to me so obvious that this was not a good tactic to pursue. I want to say quite frankly that if that problem is to be solved—and I, as a well-wisher of Ireland, devoutly hope that it will be—there is only one way in which it can be solved; and that is by the freely given consent of both sides. I cannot think of any responsible statesman, in Eire, in this country or in any other country, contemplating that a solution can be reached, or any worth-while object attained, by force of arms. What could be achieved, even supposing that one side or the other were to win most resounding victories, but eternal bitterness and hardness of heart?
As I have said, I can speak only from the point of view of an Englishman. But there is one quality Englishmen do try to cultivate—the quality of tolerance, of trying to possess enough imagination to think out what is going on the other side of the hill. That is a quality which enables them to realise that people who have very different traditions, who have had very different upbringing and a very different history, may look at things from a wholly different point of view. There can be no doubt but that the Ministers of Eire are much better able to judge the requirements of Eire than can I or any other Minister in this country. They are responsible for the peace, order and good government of Eire, and if they say that this is necessary to ensure the peace, order and good government of Ireland, who am I, and who are we, to say them nay?
I would like to say to the noble and learned Viscount who initiated this debate that even if he had tried to do with much greater force and eloquence what I confess I tried to do, if he had tried to dissuade the Ministers of Eire from their determination to go on with

1089
this course, if he had spoken with the eloquence of Demosthenes and at greater length even than Mr. Gladstone, I am convinced that he would have failed—as I failed. In his speech in the Dail, Mr. Costello used these words:
"… neither King nor Empire nor Commonwealth, nor the fact that there are little bits of inconvenience caused by having a passport instead of a permit or a residence permit instead of a free passage, will deflect us from our resolve to continue with this measure in the interests of peace, concord and unity in our own country. Not even the question of preferences or trade rights would have done it.…"
I have no doubt that that statement represents the view of the people of Eire. I believe I am right in saying that this Act has been passed without a dissentient vote. If I had known Mr. Costello's views earlier—and I am making not the slightest complaint—I should have been at any rate in a better position to argue against the step proposed than I was after the announcement had been made.
My Lords, that is the position. In those circumstances, what would you have done? That is the question which requires a cool head. This debate will be valueless unless we find an answer to that question, and unless we consider calmly and dispassionately the two courses open to us—and there were essentially only two. Faced with this very difficult position, I believe the first thing you would have done would have been to take counsel with the leaders of the other States of the Commonwealth. There are three States in the Commonwealth which are almost as closely affected by this problem as we are, because they have vast Irish populations—Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In my own case this was the second action, because the first thing I did was to study the subject very carefully. I studied the treaties and the "most favoured nation" clause, and discussed the matter with officials of the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Board of Trade. I soaked myself in these matters. Then we arranged a meeting for which the Irish Ministers came to this country to meet privately a few of the Ministers of the Commonwealth—Mr. St. Laurent, Dr. Evatt and Mr. Peter Fraser.
So far, I think the noble Viscount will agree, we did not go wrong. We discussed the matter; I exposed as best I could
1090
the difficult situation which would arise, and it was arranged that we should meet again in Paris. We met again, with the exception that Mr. St. Laurent could not be there and Mr. Pearson took his place. Perhaps I should add that I was accompanied by all the aforesaid officials, with all the treaties. I will say no more about our further discussions than this—and I think it is right your Lordships should know this: if we had taken a different line from the one we decided to take, we should have acted in the teeth of the advice of the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? He is giving us the clearest account, and I am grateful. He tells us that he studied the treaties with great attention and then met, as was most wise and proper, the other representatives whom he has mentioned, and exposed his view. May I ask him to consider telling us whether or not he attaches importance to the difficulties that now arise under the "most favoured nation" clause?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, I was coming to that, if the noble Viscount had done me the courtesy of waiting for a few moments. I could not possibly conclude this speech without dealing with that question. Were we to act in accordance with the advice of those distinguished statesmen? We have a perfect right in this to consider our own advantage. Indeed, bearing in mind always that the friendship of other countries is itself an advantage to us, we should be guided by our own advantage in this matter. Let us consider where our own advantage lies. It is traditionally supposed that when a schoolmaster administers chastisement to a small boy he says, "My boy, this hurts me more than it hurts you." I think that if it really hurt him more than it hurt the boy, there would not be so much corporal punishment. Punish Ireland as much as you like, so long as it is not going to hurt us more than it hurts her.
What is the right course? Suppose we say that we will amend the 1948 Act, which comes into force on January 1, and under which, by definition, Eire citizens are not to be aliens and are to be treated as though they were British subjects, still possessing the rights accorded to British subjects. Suppose we alter

1091
that and say that they are foreigners. We then expel, as we should have to do, from our Civil Service, from our Diplomatic Service, from our Army and our Forces generally, all citizens of Eire. What should we gain from that? We should have to substitute for the comparatively small aliens control a great body of officials; otherwise the existing aliens control would break down completely, for the Irish, fortunately for us, come over at certain seasons in very large numbers—for example, for potato picking. We could not possibly work the aliens control with anything like the present staff; it would break down utterly. I say again that, from the point of view of our own advantage, let it not be forgotten, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out, when reading Mr. Costello's speech, that if Mr. Costello makes good the promise in his speech our citizens will have corresponding advantages in Eire.
Apart from that, what could we hope to gain if we suddenly made all these people aliens? No doubt we shall have to make some minor modifications to our law; but we do not propose to make the major modification in our law which would be required if we intended to make all Eire citizens aliens. I hope the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, when he comes to speak, will address himself (I am sure he will not mind my asking him this) to the particular point: What precisely does he say we shall gain if we alter our law and enact that, as from the repeal of the External Relations Act, all Eire citizens shall become aliens? Nothing is more certain than that our law here governs what goes on in this country, just as the law of Eire governs what goes on in Eire. We are perfectly entitled—subject, of course, to the problems of international law, to which I shall come in a moment—to pass what laws we like here for our own people, just as Eire is; and we can say, as we have said, that we propose to continue, in substance, the present law.
Mr. Costello has indicated that he proposes to review the nationality law of Eire. At the present moment that law has this unfortunate feature: it provides that if any citizen of Eire acquires the citizenship of another country he thereby loses his citizenship of Eire. I very
1092
much hope that when the Irish authorities review their law they will consider whether any such provision is really necessary. We have found, rather contrary to our expectation, that the system which allows dual nationality does not work nearly so badly as many of us feared it would. At any rate, my Lords, I believe we have much more to gain from friendship with Eire than the reverse, and I believe that fact alone was a factor which made it desirable that we should take this course. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in another place that the position in regard to Eire is so special and so peculiar that it can afford no precedent whatever for any other case.
Let us not forget that what we have to decide, unhappily, is what is to be done in view of the fact that Eire is going out of the Commonwealth. It is not as though she wished to stay in the Commonwealth, with some kind of a limitation on her obligations. But let us also, as Mr. Churchill said, look at the matter realistically. It is the fact, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out, that, in spite of the External Relations Act, Eire was neutral during the war; we were deprived of the use of her ports at a time of great peril to us; a German Minister was sitting in Dublin, and an Eire Minister in Berlin. All these things were done while the External Relations Act prevailed. Therefore, as Mr. Churchill said—and I quote his words:
"Whatever may be the sentimental issues, no real or material change is involved in the position which has been accepted and endured for the last ten years or more."
When I come to consider the problems of international law, I would ask your Lordships to remember that phrase.
Mr. Churchill asked in another place, and the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, asked here: Why should Eire retain all the advantages of membership? But, my Lords, does Eire retain those advantages? Surely, the great benefit the Commonwealth brings is the joint consultation, alike in matters civil and military, the sharing of information, and the resulting solution of common difficulties. But Eire is not to receive that constant flow of information, much of which is secret and confidential, which goes to Commonwealth Governments on matters of foreign policy and economic

1093
affairs; she is not to be brought into the consultation which goes on within the family circle of the Commonwealth on all matters of common interest; she is not to be treated as a partner with Commonwealth countries in matters of defence; she is not to get the special information, consultation, advice and assistance of military missions which are exchanged between Commonwealth countries; she is not to be invited to the periodical meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, or to other meetings of Commonwealth Ministers, and she is not to be entitled to membership of Commonwealth committees which now exist or may be appointed to deal with technical questions. No one has greater experience of these matters than the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. But I would venture to say that the flow and interchange of communication and information, and the sharing of common tasks and common perils, are the hallmark and the importance of the Commonwealth relationship. From all those things Eire must now be excluded. Not by our wish, but by her own act, she has made it plain that she is no longer a member of the Commonwealth.
I now come to consider the question of preferences and the treatment of nationals. For the reasons which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, gave, I shall consider this matter without going into great detail. Down to this point I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that the course we have taken is obviously the better of the two.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount has not satisfied me, and I do not think he has satisfied any noble Lords on this side of the House by what he has yet said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Even although there is no difficulty whatever about preferences, and even although there is no international difficulty about the treatment and status of citizens, still the noble Marquess says that we ought to have taken a different line. If he takes that view, I realise that I shall not convince him by the rest of my speech.
The first Trade Agreement with Eire that I have in mind is that of 1938. It was concluded by a Government of which
1094
both the noble and learned Viscount who opened this debate and the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, were distinguished members. Why did they conclude that Agreement? They concluded it because they thought it would confer mutual benefits. They decided that it would confer benefits on this country, and no doubt the Irish Ministers thought it would confer benefits upon Eire. But the Government here would never have concluded that Agreement unless they thought it conferred benefits on us. Therefore, I say, if it is possible to keep that Agreement, let us keep it. Indeed, we extended it, as I think your Lordships will remember, on July 31 of this year, the day after the British Nationality Bill received the Royal Assent, because we believe it was a matter of mutual benefit. If it were not a benefit to this country we should never have made it and, therefore, if we can, let us continue it. It is quite true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, that in these days of rather abnormal trading, with bulk purchases between Governments, preferences matter much less than they did in the pre-war days. When we get back to the old system this matter will again assume importance.
All this was discussed and explored with the other Dominion statesmen and with the Eire Ministers. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was right: the question, broadly, depends on whether or not Eire is to be regarded in international law as a foreign country—subject always to this further point, that the question does not arise in the abstract. It would arise on some particular treaty, and the question would then be: "Are you entitled to do that which you are doing?" The question would be whether the treaty is construed having regard to the circumstances existing when it was made. That, of course, is a very important question. The real consideration, however, is whether an international Court would now regard citizens of Eire as aliens, and on that I cannot, of course, make any definite assertion. There are arguments which would have to be countered if they should be advanced, but one of the factors which an international Court would consider would be: How do these two nations regard each other inter se? If the Court find that these two nations have continu

1095
ing history, such as we have with Eire, with uninterrupted trade relations, and if the Court were to find that we are conferring certain rights—not common citizenship—upon each other's citizens, that obviously would be a fact upon which the Court Would rely in considering whether or not Eire had become a foreign country within the meaning of the particular treaty.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me? I think he put that a little badly, and it may be dangerous. It is not a question of conferring equal rights, but of not removing existing equal rights.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as Eire is concerned, they contemplate new nationality legislation, which will be "conferring" as far as we are concerned. I quite agree that it will be retaining, and I should have said "retaining and/or conferring." Of course, I agree that under the Geneva Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, no country which was not a party to it could be affected by the Agreement. Some of the countries—I hope, for instance, Denmark—will associate themselves with that Treaty in due course, but I do not know. In so far as any country is bound by the Treaty, they cannot complain. In so far as any country is not bound, the questions then would be: (1) Under the new arrangements, has Eire now become a foreign State? and (2), Should not the position be considered as at the date the Treaty was signed? I hope, and I think I may say I believe, that this point will never be brought up.
If he will forgive my saying so, I cannot understand the advice which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, received from very distinguished lawyers and I think his memory must be wrong. He had much better hear the indictment against him before he interrupts! I think the noble Lord must be wrong, and for this reason: that the "most favoured nation" clause is merely an obligation to extend to all nations that which you are extending—in the present tense—to any other nation. Suppose, for example, the noble Lord had extended a preference to Palestine, he would have been extending it against the law, and he must have known that he was doing wrong. If he had then been brought before this Court
1096
and they had told him: "You are doing wrong," what could he have done? He could have stopped doing what was wrong and stopped giving a concession to Palestine. Had he then stopped giving a concession to Palestine he would not have had to give it to anybody else. The most that could have happened was that he might have had to pay damages for the period of time when he was wrong. But to suggest that because you have once granted a preference to Palestine it follows that you must go on extending that preference to Palestine for the future, and are therefore bound to extend it to everybody else, is a proposition of law which I am quite confident no lawyers—and least of all my noble friend opposite—would possibly advance. It is an impossible proposition.
So far as that matter is concerned, I have not the slightest fear that it might be said we were wrong. I am not concealing from your Lordships that these are difficult questions. I hope that we shall be able to counter such an attack, in the unlikely event of an attack being made. But I am quite certain that the fact that we were wrong and the fact that we could not counter the attack would not imperil our whole system of preferences. It would merely mean that we should have to stop giving that particular preference to Eire. Of course, I need hardly tell your Lordships that I have pointed that out to them quite plainly, as I indicate it to your Lordships now. I do not think it is a very real point, because I do not believe that the question will ever arise.
The real question, then, is this: Because of all the rights and privileges which we have been giving over all these years, is it really to be said that an international Court is going to be so legalistic, to consider the form so much and the substance so little, that they will say: "These momentous consequences happen from a change from something which, in Mr. Churchill's words, 'involves no real or material change'"? I hope, and I believe, that an international Court would take a broader and more common-sense view. International law is a growing and a living thing, constantly adapting itself to meet new situations. Only last week the Court considered some proposition which seems to be now accepted and for which, if I had had it in an examination paper

1097
when I was a young man, I should certainly have received very low marks indeed. I feel confident that there is no such danger as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, envisaged.
Now I pass to one or two other matters. When the Government announced this policy it was stated that:
"The United Kingdom Government will not regard the enactment of this legislation by Eire as placing Eire in the category of foreign countries or Eire's citizens in the category of foreigners."
That meant plainly enough that we were not going to propound to Parliament any legislation amending the British Nationality Act of 1948—that is, no major legislation: there might have to be legislation on minor matters. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon (whom I am glad to see seeking new laurels in a new profession, judging by his writings in the Sunday newspapers) said that the use of the expression "will not regard" in a country which still lives under "the rule of law" had a totalitarian flavour. I would remind the noble Viscount that the Irish Constitution which was passed on December 13, 1937, contained no reference whatever to the King, and it invested supreme command of the Armed Forces in the President. The Government of that day then made a somewhat similar pronouncement as follows:
"We are prepared to treat the new Constitution as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free State."
Is it totalitarian and denying the "rule of law" to say, "We will not regard," but perfectly all right to say, "We are prepared to treat"? If there is a distinction no one can put it better than the noble and learned Viscount; but if he does, to use a phrase of Mr. Costello's, quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, he will be "perilously pirouetting on a pin-point."
I have been asked the specific question, which Department will in future deal with Eire. I do not know what will be decided ultimately, but certainly for the time being the Commonwealth Relations Office will do so. It is useless to say that that is not logical—nothing is logical in our connection with Eire—but the Commonwealth Relations Office contains men who know all about the subject. It is not a matter for the Foreign Office, as
1098
the citizens of Eire are not foreigners. I do not think we can do better than keep to the existing system.
I think I have answered the other questions that were put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, asked an interesting question about the Irish Peers. Unfortunately, they are a race who are gradually dying out, and I only wish there were more of them. Those who are still with us as Irish Peers will remain, but I fear that the day may come when there will be no more of them. With regard to the position of Peers of the United Kingdom who are citizens of Eire—of whom he himself is such a shining exemplar—I need hardly say that in the future we shall, as in the past, hope to welcome him in this Assembly, and I am sure we shall profit from his presence.
I believe that if noble Lords will bear in mind that the decision we reached is the one which accords with the strong views of other members of the Commonwealth, and that to treat the citizens of Eire as foreigners would inflict more damage on us than it would on them—although I agree it is a very difficult situation—all will come to the conclusion that the way we have taken is the right way.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I did ask the noble and learned Viscount a question about the phrase "a citizen of Eire" in the British Nationality Act. Would it apply to the citizen of a republic not then created, which would be wholly outside the Commonwealth?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In my opinion the position is plain: Eire is still Eire. I have no doubt that the provisions of our Statute of 1948 applying to citizens of Eire will apply notwithstanding the repeal of the External Relations Act.
5.36 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has made an interesting, profoundly informative and, I think, honest attempt to answer the questions put to him, and I think we are all grateful to him for that. He dealt in detail—not satisfactorily to my mind, but as satisfactorily as circumstances permit—with the very difficult question of Imperial Preference. One of the great difficulties of which I have no doubt he is aware, is that while he may say no international Court would invalidate treaties already

1099
adopted, this may be establishing a very difficult precedent; that fact must be borne in mind.
I should like to deal with the last point which the noble and learned Viscount made, and that is the wider implications of the present relationship with Eire—whether Eire is to be perpetuated and regarded as a feature of our relationship within the Commonwealth, yet possessing a foreign status. In his speech, as I understand it, Mr. Costello definitely gave the impression that he did not regard the present situation as more than a passing phase. He said:
"I believe that as a result of this measure, our relationship with that country"—
that is, Great Britain—
"will be far closer and far better and will be put upon a better and firmer foundation than it has ever been before."
Well, my Lords, no one can call the foundation very firm as it is at the present moment, and I presume that Mr. Costello used language of that kind because he had in mind some future developments of which we are not at present aware. I think also it is perfectly clear, from the passage which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, quoted from Mr. Chifley, that Mr. Chifley also regards this as a passing phase, and that something more definite must be established in regard to what is meant by "citizenship" or "sharing the rights of citizenship within the Commonwealth."
In my view, one thing is crystal clear; we cannot allow it to be said that people can be in and out of the Commonwealth simultaneously. In regard to Ireland, anything is possible; but let us remember that what is done in regard to Ireland may become a precedent elsewhere, and that when we are discussing this question we are discussing issues very much broader than the Irish question itself. What use could be made of the precedents thus established? How are they going to affect the relations of the rest of the Commonwealth? Are they going to attenuate the links which exist? Are they going to act so that the centrifugal process which has been going on so long may be accelerated? That is what we on this side of the House fear. It is on this point that we must make an endeavour to clear our minds, even if we agree—as I do agree with the noble and
1100
learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—that for the time being we have to accept an absolutely illogical position and allow ourselves a brief respite. We must think where we are going. We must have a clear policy in regard to this matter. I do not think His Majesty's Government have that. I do not pretend that I have it myself. All I say is that we ought to think this thing out, and make certain reflections upon the conditions in which this difficult new problem has to be solved.
In the first place—and I think we ought not to forget it—under a Motion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in this very year, we have taken a step which ought to have helped to solve the difficulty which has confronted Eire in the last few weeks. Under his Motion, when we were dealing with the British Nationality Act, we brought in an entirely new concept, a concept of citizenship of the Commonwealth which was to be equivalent to British subjecthood and which, in our opinion, was to remove altogether any sense of paramountcy arising out of the use of the terms "subject," "British subjecthood," and so on, in the relations of the Commonwealth. We on this side of the House gladly accepted that new conception. I think that before it was introduced some of us said that a new conception of that kind was obviously required. It is sad to think that, at the very moment when there was established that new concept which ought to have given Eire the chance of saying "We can accommodate ourselves to this," she should have remained with her eyes riveted on the past, and should have insisted upon an action which will raise very grave difficulties for us and for herself in the future.
When we come to the question of Commonwealth citizenship, we shall have to consider what is the content of this problem. Clearly, it is accepted by Eire and by everyone that movement within the Commonwealth must be governed by the local immigration laws. With that we all agree, subject to the condition that citizens of the Commonwealth cannot be aliens in any part of the Commonwealth. I gather that Eire accepts that condition and that she is establishing, or is going to establish, in Eireann law a position for British subjects

1101
or Commonwealth citizens which will be the same as we give her citizens in the Commonwealth.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right, but he must bear this in mind. This is not a scheme for common citizenship, so far as Eire is concerned. It is a scheme for an exchange of citizenship rights. Under the scheme, Commonwealth citizens will continue as they are, because it is open to us to make an arrangement, if we like, with the Siamese for the exchange of citizenship rights. That is what they are doing with ourselves and contemplate doing with the various nations of the Commonwealth.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am glad to have that explanation. I was coming to that point. I was going to say that the exchange of citizenship rights is not the same thing as common citizenship, and it upon common citizenship that the unity of the Commonwealth will depend. We must be careful about doing anything which attenuates that conception of Commonwealth unity. I am considering the effect upon the rest of the Commonwealth of condoning and accepting Eire's action, not as a matter of temporary accommodation but as a permanent influence in our relations with Eire.
The second concept of citizenship must clearly be the right to countries to give each other preference. As a matter of fact, that is not at all clear under our arrangement with Eire. Whatever may be true in regard to past treaties, it cannot be true in regard to future development. In any case, we must beware of anything which weakens in any way the right of the rest of the Commonwealth to develop preference to the utmost possible extent, because it is the one constructive and unifying factor which has been continuous during the last fifty years, during which time so many other links have been weakened and, indeed, in some cases entirely lost. Let us remember this about preference. It was not introduced to this country or proposed by this country. In the first place, it was proposed by the greatest Dominion, Canada, in 1898. It was proposed not by a British Statesman but by a French Canadian, Sir Wilfred Laurie. It is the one solid continuing factor in the life of the Commonwealth—apart
1102
from its deep rooted sentiment—which has given the Commonwealth unity.
I suppose—and many people will also think—that in the concept of citizenship we should include the principle that, when one part of the Commonwealth is at war, every part is at war. It need not be belligerent, but it cannot be neutral; that if one part of the Commonwealth is at war, the whole of the Commonwealth is at war in that sense. I do not insist upon that because, as a matter of fact, that principle is not accepted in the whole of the Commonwealth at the present time. I mention it because I feel certain that it is going to be put to us by the new Asiatic Dominions as one of the considerations affecting citizenship. We shall have to be ready to answer it. My own feeling about it is that it will not be solved by trying to get accepted any principle applying to the Commonwealth as a whole. It will have to be solved by regional defensive groups.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Would the noble Lord tell me what he means by being at war but not belligerent?
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I meant this: that active participation in war is not required, to the extent of fighting, sending contingents of men and so on.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Lord means at war de jure, and not de facto.
LORD STRABOLGI: Egypt is a perfect example of that. I agree with the noble Lord.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: When we analyse the possible content of citizenship—and I think we have to clear our minds upon this—we come to the final and inescapable question about citizenship of the Commonwealth: of what does that citizenship consist? What is the international status of this Commonwealth of which one is a citizen? Is it simply a treaty status, like that of the groups which have come together in Europe recently? Is it a charter status, like that of the nations which have been brought together under the San Francisco Charter Treaty? Or is it something more intimate, more abiding and more definite? I think we all agree here that it must be something more intimate, more definite and more abiding than a loose relationship between nations united by treaty, or even between nations which decide to act

1103
under a given charter of international conduct. That is a system which is not working very well at the present moment. For us there is only one institution which represents that link, and that is the Crown. That is the historic position in the Commonwealth.
Not only is it the historic position, but it is laid down by our constitutional conventions and rules. In the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, under which membership of the Commonwealth is defined—and it is defined nowhere else—allegiance to the Crown is the essential principle. White that is merely in the Preamble of our own Act, let us remember that it was adopted and followed by every nation of the Commonwealth at the time of the Abdication; so it is established definitely in that way. Let us also remember that, although it is contained merely in a Preamble so far as we are concerned, in South Africa and in some other Dominions, if I am not mistaken, it is not in the Preamble but in the actual Act. There is the Statute which governs and defines membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations at the present time, and I think we must be very careful how we depart from it.
It is not merely that reference to the Crown as a symbol of unity is deeply rooted in tradition and sentiment in the hearts and minds of millions throughout the world; it is not merely that that sentiment is not confined only to the British but is felt by many who are not British at all in stock—for instance, it is held quite sacred by the people of Quebec, as it is part of the guarantee of their constitutional liberty—but it is also that the Crown is recognised internationally as our hall-mark. It is the common Crown which gives the Commonwealth its international status, and my conviction is that the Commonwealth cannot maintain its unity or its distinctive international status without some common interest like the Crown to represent common ideals, hopes, interests, sense of comradeship and a common purpose, transcending nation, creed and race. Can there be any institution except the Crown which can do that?
I agree with the noble Viscount that we must have open minds upon this subject; that we must not allow rooted habits of thought, as we have sometimes in the
1104
past, to obstruct creative development. There was a time in this House when many noble Lords resisted the proposals made by Lord Durham, and yet we all recognise now that what he proposed was the basis of the modern Commonwealth—a great new development, a miracle of constructive imagination and thought upon which this magnificent structure has been built.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid that this House has resisted Home Rule not once but many times.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I agree, but that is another example. I am talking at the moment of the Commonwealth as a whole.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was only supplementing the noble Lord's words.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: It is a fact that Lord Durham is not one of those statesmen who have been in any way commemorated in this House, so far as I am aware. In these days events move fast, and our minds must be receptive and alert if the British Commonwealth of Nations is to enter, as I believe it can, a period of even greater utility and influence. I agree with what Lord Swinton said just now in regard to there being no sealed pattern, for all of us have open minds upon this subject. But three guiding principles seem to me absolutely essential. I think we are absolutely agreed upon them on this side of the House, and before the end of this debate I shall be happy to hear that they are accepted by the noble Viscount opposite. They are these: first, that the Commonwealth must be based upon a common citizenship—not merely upon an exchange of citizenship rights, but a common citizenship uniting the whole; secondly, that no innovation as regards citizenship can be considered by us which is not fully approved by all existing members of the Commonwealth, and thirdly, that no innovation can be considered by us which would lead to any further attenuation of the ties which bind existing members of the Commonwealth. If the noble Viscount would give us some assurances on those points, we should feel that a rather doubtful position—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What was the third point?
LORD ALTRINCHAM: That no innovation should be accepted here which would lead to any further attenuation of the ties which bind existing members of the Commonwealth. I thank the noble Viscount for giving attention to those three principles, and I hope he will be able to tell us before the end of this debate that he accepts all three.
5.57 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of the speech of the noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships, but I think the last part showed a complete underestimate of what has really happened in regard to the matter we are discussing this afternoon. Some of the speeches from the other side of the House have, I am afraid, ignored the significance of this event, which is one of the great events in European history. It is not just a question of adjusting citizenship and preferences and that kind of thing. The Irish people, by an overwhelming majority of the twenty-six counties, have decided that they are going to break completely away from us and become again a sovereign State. That is a tremendous event. The extraordinary thing is that, while the people of Eire are doing that, the Prime Minister of Eire has declared that he wishes to remain in the closest relationship with us and offers the exchange of citizenship which we have just heard described by the Lord Chancellor, which retains in practice a very close link between the two countries. That is the extraordinary part of it.
It is all very well to say that this is a short-sighted act on the part of the Irish. But it is something they have dreamed of for centuries, and many have said in the past that this was their ultimate destiny. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, whom I thank for his words, reminded your Lordships that the Irish are one of the mother peoples just as much as we are ourselves. It was the one place where the torch of learning and culture was kept alive when the whole of Europe, including this country, was overrun by the barbarians in the Dark Ages. The actual culture and art and learning of Ireland is older than ours, and to discuss the future of these people in the terms of such questions as we have head to-day from the Opposition is wholly to misunderstand the situation. For Lord Altrincham (who I am sorry to
1106
see has left the Chamber) to lay down conditions, in these circumstances, as to what shall constitute Commonwealth citizenship in the future, and so on, is altogether to miss the point.
Could this present situation have been avoided? From the British point of view this event has come at a very difficult time, and I commiserate with my noble friend and my other friends in the Government on having to deal with this extremely awkward situation at this particular time; and I shall in a moment, in the very few remarks which I have to make, deal a little further with the reason for their difficulty. Could this event have been avoided at the present time and in the future? The noble Viscount who spoke for the Liberal Party gave me a nostalgic feeling when he spoke of the great political struggles of the past, and Lord Pakenham reminded the last noble Lord to speak that Lord Durham was not the only reformer who was resisted in this House. What would have happened if the Home Rule Bill of 1886—the year I was born—had not been thrown out by the then Marquess of Salisbury who led the Peers at that time?
LORD PAKENHAM: On a small point of information, it was a later Home Rule which was thrown out.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to my noble friend. There have been too many such Bills thrown out in your Lordships' House. I wonder what would have happened if the later Bill, the one of 1893, had passed. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, rightly took a pride in the later third Home Rule Bill. No doubt, he assisted the Liberal leader, then Mr. Asquith, when he introduced it. I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was in Parliament at that time and that he also played an active part in connection with the third Home Rule Bill. I wonder, if one of those three Bills—especially the first, the one of 1886—had reached the Statute Book as the result of wiser leadership and wiser counsels among the Conservatives in this House, whether Irishmen would have been satisfied with what could have been made into an extended Dominion status, or whether they would now have thought it necessary and desirable to break these last tenuous links. I cannot answer that question; none of us can.

1107
I can only quote the words of Parnell who, when asked what was the ultimate aim of the Irish people, said:
"Who can set boundaries to the march of a people?"
It may be that this was the ultimate aim: that Ireland should again become a sovereign State and completely sever her connection with this country. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House and his colleagues are now faced with that situation. I have listened carefully to the whole of this debate, but what I have failed to hear yet from the spokesmen of the Conservative Party—and this applies to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, who has just spoken—is what different policy they would have pursued. I would respectfully ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, to whom we are going to listen—I am sure, with great pleasure, as we always do—to tell us what he would do in this situation. Would he throw back this gesture of friendship, this offer of some system of co-operation with us, under which a British subject, or an Australian, or a Canadian is not to be regarded in Ireland as an alien, and a citizen of Eire can go about freely here, and not be regarded as a foreigner? Would he and his supporters have thrown that back in the faces of the Irish people? Do they suggest that that would really have been to the ultimate advantage of the Commonwealth?
We have not only to think of our own country in this matter, but we have also to think of the position of Canada, Australia, South Africa and the other Dominions. In deciding what course to take, the Government, I am sure, have had close regard to this question of creating precedents. Why I said just now that this great event had occurred at a very difficult time was because the future relationships with the new Asiatic Dominions have still to be settled. What happens with regard to Eire, I think, must have some bearing on the future discussions which will have to take place in that connection. It is no use trying to ride off, saying: "Anything can happen in Ireland; the Irish situation is in a category of its own." That is not the case. If it is possible for a Republic to be established in Ireland (and the appointed day has not yet come), with complete and independent sovereignty and, at the
1108
same time, for good practical and sentimental reasons, possible to retain some measure of common citizenship, will not the same suggestion be made if, in the case of India, the intention is carried out—as I understand it may be—to declare India a Republic?
We know that the Dominion of Pakistan intends to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I believe that I am right in saying that that is also the intention, or will be the intention, of the Constituent Assembly in India. But certain of the Indian leaders and the Indian Parties are committed to a republican form of government and our problem (this is a problem of great importance, I suggest, and it may also become one of great urgency) is: Can we define and discover some new form of Commonwealth citizenship which will enable this new form of Dominion—if I may so call it—to remain in close association and co-operation with the older Dominions? That is a most difficult problem, which not only His Majesty's Government here but His Majesty's Governments overseas must face. I think it is unfortunate, therefore, that in respect of this particular case of Ireland, a broader and more statesmanlike view of this great event has not been taken by the leaders of the Conservative Party in this country. From the wide point of view of Commonwealth relationships I think it would have been better if a more generous attitude had been adopted, and we had heard less legalism or talk of difficulties over preference and the like.
One noble Lord who addressed your Lordships earlier in this debate quoted some words of a speaker in the Dail, in which reference was made to future developments of the British Commonwealth and the great changes that might take place in the whole of the British Commonwealth. What will the British Commonwealth look like in fifty years or sixty years' time? I would only touch on the question of population trends. Australia can easily maintain, at a high standard of living, 100,000,000 people. In sixty years' time, Australia may contain 100,000,000 people. With regard to Canada I have heard much dispute, but I do not think it will be gainsaid that the potential population possibilities in Canada amount to 50,000,000—and possibly more. New Zealand certainly could support 20,000,000.

1109
As I say, there has been great dispute about some of these matters—particularly about Canada—and some American scientists who have taken part in the discussions have argued at considerable length, basing their contentions on climatic conditions in Canada and so on. So I am purposely underestimating. Now in the same period of which I have spoken, what could be the population of these Islands? By controlled and well-organised emigration—emigration carried out with due regard to our economic interests—it is estimated that we might well have reduced the population of these Islands to perhaps 30,000,000. Then the predominant partner in the Commonwealth will not be Great Britain—that is, England, Scotland and Wales. The predominant partner will be either Australia or Canada, with whom the Irish people have no quarrel at all, and in both of which Dominions there will be found vast numbers of people of Irish descent and with Irish memories. And if there is one thing that an Irishman never loses, it is his memory, his memory of past wrongs and past glories—and the Irish have had plenty of both.
It may well be that the whole of that race which has once owed allegiance to the Crown of England will then be reunited. I myself, not only out of sympathy for my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government who have this very difficult task, but for other reasons also, regret very much, speaking here as a Scot, that this event has happened at all. I fought against the necessity for it. In another place I stood, sometimes almost alone, against the excesses and cruelties which have helped to build up this present situation. I think I can claim to have been a friend of Ireland in bad times, when the names of assassins in Ireland were execrated as much as the gunmen in Palestine to-day. I regret this event, but I understand it. We living here in England do not always know the feeling of people who have lived under foreign subjugation; and in Irish eyes it has been foreign subjugation. A Scotsman or a Welshman can understand that better; it is difficult for an Englishman. It is necessary for us to remind ourselves of some of the ghastly events that have happened in Ireland over the last five and a half centuries. No wonder Irish memories are long! I can understand their urge to be able to say that the
1110
last link has gone—that even the Crown, which (as the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, has said) is in Ireland a symbol of oppression, has disappeared from their shores.
I take up the point on partition mentioned in the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, on which I congratulate him. We are committed here to the present Act. We must support the six counties against any aggression from outside. I do not believe there is any chance of that whatever. What are the hopes of patriotic Irishmen in the twenty-six counties of ending this truncation of their land? I believe there is a hope in the younger generation in the six counties. I believe there is a change among the younger men and women, and I have had evidence of it. I believe that they will come to see, in a new united Ireland, a link which may reconstruct the chain of common citizenship; it may provide the answer to the problem which is so difficult at the present time—that of trying to reconcile the sympathy and friendship of the Irish people with their desire to assert complete independence and yet maintain co-operation and mutual help between two peoples who have gone through so much together in the past and shown, in their private and domestic affairs, such friendship and comradeship through the centuries.
6.13 p.m.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, as eighth speaker on the list, I naturally find that many of my points have been dealt with to a large extent. Therefore, I am not going to keep your Lordships long this afternoon. I would, however, like to address a few words to your Lordships on the question of trade and Imperial Preference. The exit of Eire from the British Commonwealth is an accepted fact, or rather it will be by the middle of next month. The repeal of the External Relations Act and the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act complete this process. I think it will be regarded on all sides as a very unfortunate event, because it makes very close to our own shores a breach in the family relationship which we have all come to regard as the Commonwealth and Empire. But as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor pointed out, quoting from a speech by Mr. Churchill, it really brings into effect what has actually been

1111
happening and has been in existence informally for a long time.
I think it would be well to consider one or two facts in relation to the results of this event. My first point has been dealt with fairly extensively. Neither the Havana Charter nor the Geneva Agreement abrogates existing commercial treaties. It has already been pointed out that we have forty commercial treaties containing a "most favoured nation" clause. Therefore, if we are to give preferential treatment to Ireland on her leaving the Commonwealth, we should be acting in flat violation of all those treaties. Apparently the citizenship problem has been solved to the satisfaction of a good many Governments, including that of the United Kingdom, by the simple process of pretending that there is no change. I am sure that that is going to lead to trouble. For instance, what will be the position of a citizen of Ireland in a high position in the Civil Service, when his first allegiance must be to a foreign country, and a foreign country which, after all, has not always been entirely friendly to us? Again, it has been blandly assumed that the trade relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland may and will remain probably exactly the same as before the passing of the Act. With all the good will in the world, I fail to see how this can possibly prove to be so in practice. Take the Havana Charter which, as has already been stated, remains still to be ratified. It was signed by a large number of countries, including Ireland. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the word "Ireland" was used; I think use of that name was in anticipation of the intention to discard the word "Eire" and revert to the word "Ireland." That cannot be said for certain, but it looked to me as though it was put in deliberately in this way in order that in commercial as well as in political matters the claim to sovereignty over the six counties might be maintained.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, it seems a pity, late in the debate, to put a point which I think can be easily answered. If the noble Lord will look at the signatories to the Havana Charter, he will see that one is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Then
1112
on the same page there is, as he says, the word "Ireland"; but, in fact, Ireland is the English word which corresponds to the word "Eire," and whatever the implications may be, it was quite legal, I think, to put it in that form. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would agree with me. I think that is the true position, and it is a pity that there should be unnecessary suspicion on a matter which, I would have said, was quite legal.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for having given me the answer to that question, but it is a pity to have any division of opinion on it. I think I was perfectly right to put the point, and I believe the Government can quite easily answer it. Although Eire signed the Havana Charter, she did not participate in signing the general Agreements on Tariffs and Trade at Geneva. The countries which subscribed to the Geneva Agreement have undertaken to observe "to the fullest extent of their executive authority" all the provisions in the Havana Charter, except those bringing into being the International Trade Organisation. To my mind, therefore, the position is that if the Havana Charter is ratified, Ireland is a party thereto. If, as seems quite possible, it is not ratified, and the Geneva Agreements take its place, Ireland, at any rate up to the present, has no lot or part therein at all; in the language of the Agreements, it is not a "contracting party." Under the non-discrimination and preference clauses, therefore, any contracting party to the Geneva Agreements is entitled to claim from Great Britain exactly the same treatment in commercial matters as that given to Ireland. Ireland will, unless protest is made, continue to receive preferential treatment within the Empire, but, as a party entirely unconnected with the Geneva Agreements, will be under no obligation whatever to concede anything to any one inside or outside the British Commonwealth and Empire.
With regard to preferences, the Geneva Agreements make provision—as does the Havana Charter—that preferences in force between the countries of the Commonwealth and Empire were to be allowed to stand. This dispensation was not given to the Commonwealth and Empire as

1113
such, but was given to countries specifically named, of which Ireland was one. I suppose it may, therefore, be argued by Great Britain and Ireland that that dispensation having been granted, the preferences may be allowed to continue. On the other hand, it might equally well be argued that when those Agreements were signed it was not contemplated that one of the countries would take action to constitute itself as a country foreign to all the others, and, therefore, that any arrangements then made were rendered null and void by that action. This argument could well be supported by pointing out that in the one case in which preference existed between two foreign countries—namely, between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba—special provision was made in the Agreement for their maintenance.
From the point of view of expediency, it might be a very satisfactory arrangement that the products of this country and of Ireland should be exchanged on specially favourable terms. But it does not stop there. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has mentioned, it has been specifically stated that India proposes to regard herself as a Republic in the future, and she may take action very similar to that of Ireland. The Union of South Africa may follow suit. The Lord Chancellor and others have spoken about precedent, and it has been said that the question of precedent has been exaggerated. But it is no use pretending that the case of Ireland need not be regarded as a precedent, when the Union of South Africa will very likely ask for the same thing. The particular problems which will arise in that case are very much more widespread and complicated than they are on the present issue.
And what of the other countries of the Commonwealth and Empire? One cannot help but recall the words wrung from Lord Elgin, Governor of Canada, when in 1846 the repeal of the Corn Laws gave the United States of America a tremendous advantage over the then Colony of Canada. Lord Elgin said this:
"All the prosperity of which Canada is robbed is transplanted to the other side of the line, as if to make the Canadian feel more bitterly how much kinder England is to the children who desert her than to those who remain faithful."
Have not those words, spoken one hundred years ago, a significance to-day?
1114
This haphazard method of dealing with the commercial problems of Ireland cannot be regarded with any satisfaction at all. It is one thing to be disposed to give favours to those who have been very closely connected with us; it is quite another thing when such favours cut right across commercial treaties and agreements which we have signed. Those agreements may have been misguided, but we have put our signature to them.
The question is always asked by speakers on the opposite Benches: What would you have done about it? I am merely pointing out many of the genuine difficulties which will arise as commercial difficulties. The obviously straightforward and immediate course would have been to retain the dispensation secured for the British Commonwealth and Empire for that body alone, and in due course to have made a separate commercial treaty with Ireland within the terms of the agreements to which we have pledged ourselves. The proper and final solution, of course, is to have nothing whatever to do with the Havana Charter, and to get rid of the non-discrimination clauses of the Geneva Agreement at the earliest possible moment.
6.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the subject of this debate, during the four hours we have been engaged upon it, has been so well covered by those who have already spoken that there does not really remain a great deal for me to say. However, I would like, if I may be allowed, to sum up the main points of the discussion. I think it will be agreed on all sides that it has been a debate of very high importance. As the Lord Chancellor himself said, it obviously raises not only delicate but substantial issues—one might almost say vital issues—for this country, for Eire herself and for the Empire as a whole. This debate could not usefully have been delayed, for if any alteration of policy is to take place, or any action is to be taken, it must be taken quickly. I would like to emphasize what I think has already been made clear in all the speeches to which your Lordships have listened (I think this has been recognised in all parts of the House), that this Motion is not a mere attempt to embarrass the Government. Certainly that was far from the minds of any of those who supported it on the Paper. Anyhow, if I may say so, I thought our

1115
speeches and our Motion a good deal less likely to embarrass the Government than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, and especially that part of it which dealt with partition, a subject on which we have not ourselves trenched.
I do not propose to answer the noble Lord's remarks, or to pursue the matter further, other than to say this. I hope it may be possible for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, when he winds up the debate and answers for the Government, to repeat the assurances, which I understand have already been given by the Government, with regard to the position of Ulster. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, has said, there may well be perturbation in Northern Ireland. If the Government can make the position clear, so far as they, at any rate, are concerned, I am sure it will tend to have a useful result in that country. Nor, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Killanin (I am afraid he is not present at the moment), is this debate in any way inspired by hostility or resentment against the people of Southern Ireland. We know very well—certainly I know, who have had the privilege of being at the Dominions Office—that there are wide sections of the population of that country who are actuated by the friendliest feelings towards this country. That, I think, applies even to certain Republican circles. Indeed, I think the general good will to Britain was borne out in a notable way by that wide concourse of brave men and women who came and stood at our side in the darkest days of the last war.
The purpose of this Motion, as I think your Lordships realise, is to put before Ministers, and before the country at large, certain vital considerations, arising from the recent Agreement with Eire, which have emerged from an examination by some of the foremost constitutional experts of the day of the Government statement of November 25. When the Government made that statement, as your Lordships may remember, on behalf of the Party for whom I speak I expressed extreme uneasiness as to its effect. I did not say that we in this House would resist it, but I said that we would dissociate ourselves from it. I can only say that, after listening to this valuable debate, in my mind at any rate that uneasiness still persists.
1116
I thought the Lord Chancellor passed rather lightly over the actual points of law which were raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. He talked about the Commonwealth conversations—which I agree are of the first importance, and about which I propose to say a word later on—and he spoke of the necessity for common sense, which is always valuable in politics, as elsewhere. But he did not seem to me to be unduly worried about the legal aspect. He poured scorn upon our anxieties over the word "regard" in the Government statement of November 25, and he quoted a precedent which he thought was an analogy, but which, as I hope to show, I do not think, in one vital aspect, is a complete analogy.
In my view, we still have to consider—and it is upon this point that my mind is not happy—what validity the wording of the Government statement has in national and international law. I still feel (if I may say so with all deference to the Lord Chancellor) that on this particular aspect he has not made his case. Even in dealing with Ireland, which is always sui generis, the legal aspect cannot be ignored. I believe that Mr. Jorrocks once said: "The law is a hass." That may be true, but it is with the law that we have to deal if we in this country are to avoid at a later date grave national and international complications.
I think it was Lord Simon who pointed out that we are faced here with an entirely new situation. The position has fundamentally changed, even since the time of the passing of the British Nationality Act last summer; for then, at any rate—while I would entirely agree that the main bonds which united Great Britain and Ireland had been almost severed—one thin, tenuous strand still remained. It was the existence of that strand which, to my mind, makes a difference between the precedent which the Lord Chancellor quoted and our situation now. He quoted the circumstance of 1937, when we said we would continue to treat with the Government of Ireland as if no change had occurred. But, at that period, this thin strand of connection with the Crown still persisted and, in my view, it was this very fact which made it possible for us to adopt that view at that time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I give the words again? They were: "To treat the new Constitution as not effecting a fundamental alteration."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Under British law and Irish law, this strand of connection with the Crown still existed, and to my mind that was what made it possible for us to do that. I know it was a very slender strand. Indeed, if I remember aright, it was merely that the letters of credence which were presented by Eire diplomats to foreign Courts contained the name of the King. It may be argued that that was mere legal fiction, and I think probably that would be the sort of view which was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, this afternoon. But personally I do not agree, and I think that my view is held by most noble Lords on this side of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, was concerned with the position in Eire itself. I thought that that was the main weakness of his speech, and perhaps of the general Irish attitude. If I may say so, in all deference, the Irish are slightly parochial; they are not interested very much in what happens outside Eire itself. But we here are bound to take a wider view, and I submit that, from the wider aspect, that thin link to which I have referred has a very real importance, because it did maintain, so long as it endured, a difference in law between Eire and other foreign States. It made possible, therefore, a differentiation in law between Eire and other countries. That is no doubt the reason why Mr. de Valera, who is an extremely skilful and experienced statesman, preserved that link. It was not from any special love of British connection; it was because it enabled Eire to occupy a special position, which he believed was in the interests of Eire itself.
Now, as your Lordships know, the new Government of Eire have broken that last strand. I make no complaint of that—I do not think any of us does. Whether they had technically the right to do so, in view of existing treaties, is no doubt arguable. But Eire in fact has Dominion status, and Dominion status, as we all agree, confers a right to secede from the Commonwealth. But by doing so, the Eire Government have un
1118
doubtedly made their country a foreign nation, in the international sense of the word. I think that was one of the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Simon, of the Lord Chancellor, and to which he received an affirmative answer. The fact that the Government of Great Britain say that we will not regard them as having done so, does not, as I see it—I speak with all deference—in the legal sense alter that very hard fact. We have it—and I always believed it was the case—On the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that the Irish action faced the Government here with a totally unforeseen situation. I have always believed that. I have never had a suspicion that the Government attempted to deceive the House last June, when the British Nationality Bill was under discussion. In the situation with which they were faced at the beginning of November, I am sure they have the profound sympathy of us all. But that does not meat that we need necessarily applaud or approve the steps which they took to extricate themselves from their dilemma.
As I understand it—and it is inherent in the statement of November 25, which is, after all, our main official source on this subject—His Majesty's Government base their case for putting Eire citizens in a special category on what they call—I quote their words:
"a specially close relationship between Eire and the Commonwealth countries."
But on what does this assumption, in reality, rest? In this I speak in all friendliness to Eire itself. The Government may base that argument on geographical proximity. But, of course, that is even truer of France. They may argue that Eire was formerly part of the overseas territories of the Crown. But that is true also of a large part of the United States. Or they may argue that we are a main market for the agricultural products of Eire. That is true equally of Denmark. Or, finally, they may argue that there are many Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom and in other Empire countries. That is perfectly true, but it is true also, in a lesser degree, of many other foreign States. In one respect, indeed, I should have thought that the relationship between this country and Eire was less materially close than that which joins us to some other foreign countries. Take

1119
the Benelux countries, for instance. With them we have a Treaty of Mutual Assistance. We have no such treaty with Eire.
From any reasonable and practical and factual point of view, therefore, it is difficult to see how it is possible to maintain the fiction that there is any difference, in the situation which has been created by the new Eire Legislation, between Eire and any other foreign country.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Marquess will forgive me, he has left out entirely the fact that Ireland was governed from England for nearly five centuries, and he has not mentioned the common language and the great intermingling through intermarriage, and so on, between the two countries.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Those points are equally true of the United States.
LORD STRABOLGI: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They have a common language with us; we were united from the time we landed in North America until about 1787. As for intermingling of blood, that also applies equally. I do not think the noble Lord has hold of anything really good there.
If it is impossible to maintain this fiction, as I think it is, it is really no good merely hoping everything will be all right, and trying to ignore the possible consequences of the Irish action. Take the position of Irish nationals in this country and the Commonwealth, and particularly in the United Kingdom, with which we personally are mainly concerned. In passing, I should like to say one word to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. He spoke of our "turning out" these people. But there is no question of turning out Irish citizens in this country. The only question is with what status they remain here, if they wish to remain.
During the Second Reading of the British Nationality Bill this summer the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor enumerated a number of advantages enjoyed by a British subject. A British subject qualifies for the Parliamentary franchise; he can become a Member of Parliament, a member of the
1120
Civil Service or of the Privy Council, or master of a British ship; and a number of other things of that kind. We all know that there are numbers of extremely distinguished persons emanating from Eire, who at present, I believe, occupy these positions. What will be the status and position of such persons when the Republic of Ireland Act passes into law and becomes operative? No doubt His Majesty's Government here will still regard them as having all the rights and privileges of British subjects. But what will be their position under the law? This was a point rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyle, and I should like to carry it a little further. Take the case of a man of Eire nationality at present resident in Britain and registered as a Parliamentary elector. Will he retain that position and keep his vote? Is that a position which could conceivably be challenged in the Courts? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would care to give us his personal opinion on that point. And if the name of this person is not already on the list of Parliamentary electors, could he be put on the Register after the passage of this Bill into law? This is not a purely academic point, for this reason: such votes, cast in effect by citizens of a foreign country, might easily sway the result of an election—and it might be an election which had a considerable bearing on the future of this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is rather a legal matter, and perhaps I might be permitted to deal with it. I have no doubt at all in my own mind that if the British Nationality Act of 1948, which will come into force on January 1, remains unaltered, an Eire citizen will have the same rights as British subjects and will be entitled to vote. We shall have to consider these questions in the legislation which I have foreshadowed. But so long as the 1948 Act remains the law, under Section 3 (2), the Eire citizen will be treated as if he were a British subject.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a very important statement. To many of us it appears that the situation has been changed since the passage of the British Nationality Act this summer. I can tell the noble and learned Viscount that many legal experts take this view: that the overriding consideration of that

1121
Bill, the reason and the conditions under which it was put before Parliament, were that this strand of connection of which I have spoken earlier maintained a relationship between. Eire and the Crown, and that that strand existed at the time of the passage of the Bill. The cutting of that strand since that date seems to many people to create an entirely new situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hesitate to argue with the noble Marquess on a legal matter, but I am very surprised to hear that. Where there is some ambiguity of language it is quite legitimate to consider the reason for it. The Statute was based on the circumstances then prevailing, but where there is ambiguity of language in the Statute you may consider the reasons which induced Parliament to pass the Statute.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is really impertinent for me to argue with the noble and learned Viscount on a point of law, but I should not quite have accepted that position. It is not merely the wording in the Statute; it is the conditions under which that Statute passed through Parliament. I put this to the Lord Chancellor: I understood him to say that at the time that Act was passed, the Government had no notion that this position was likely to arise. If they had, would they still have recommended that Act?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know. I have never considered that. This Act having passed, in plain, unambiguous language, the Act prevails, notwithstanding this change.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it a mere windfall, of which the Government are taking advantage with regard to the position which has now arisen? If so, in justice to the country they ought to bring in another Bill and allow it to be discussed again, because the situation is entirely different. If, when they passed and recommended the Bill, Parliament in all good faith thought that the link with the Crown would continue, and then the link was broken, and, as a result, the citizen of a completely independent Republic has all the rights and privileges of a British citizen, that is a matter to be considered by Parliament. I think that is a view which is widely held.
1122
I should like to remind your Lordships of what the position would be as a result of what the Lord Chancellor has said. It would be possible for a citizen of Eire—a citizen of a foreign State and a State which might be neutral or hostile in given circumstances—to be adopted for Parliament. He might even begin his campaign. Then somebody might get up and challenge his position. If the position were challenged, then he would, I take it, be able to prove his case by quoting Section 3, subsection (2) of the British Nationality Act. But what would happen when he came to be elected? Would he have to take the oath of allegiance to the King?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as I know he would.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So far as the Lord Chancellor knows. That is what I say—nobody has considered what would happen under this Bill. There are some very real and difficult problems which may arise. I will give you another. Suppose war were to break out and conscription were re-imposed at a time when Eire was neutral—which is, of course, a possibility. What would be the position of the men and women of Irish blood who lived, not in Ireland, but in the great cities of this country? Would they be subject to the law of this country, if Eire were not engaged in hostilities? If Irish people, regarded as subjects of a foreign State, were called up and forced to fight for Britain, there would be great and wide indignation in Eire itself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would depend on the conscription law. Anybody in this country is subject to the law of this country. If we decide to pass a conscription Act calling up everybody, no matter whom, we can do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the Government would not call up foreigners in any case, would they? I mean that we could not pass a Conscription Act calling up nationals of other countries. That has not been done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That would be very unlikely, because there would then be international complications.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Where would the Irish come under such a law?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Surely that would depend upon the conscription law. We have not got it yet.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would they be called up under the existing National Service Act?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They can be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And that would continue?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no intention on the part of the Government to interfere with that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There would be a large number of minor amendments of the law to be considered.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not regard this as a minor amendment. After all, as I have said, if they are called up, it will be likely to cause intense indignation in Eire, and if they are not called up it will cause the utmost bitterness in Britain, because it will be said that these people enjoy all the advantages of residence in this country in times of peace but will be under no obligation to fight for Britain when Britain is in danger.
LORD STRABOLGI: There was exactly that situation in the late war, in the case of the six counties of Northern Ireland. There was no great difficulty about that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is an entirely different situation.
LORD STRABOLGI: The inhabitants of those six counties were not conscripted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a different situation, because here are citizens of an entirely separate State—or it could be argued that way. I should have thought that if they, having enjoyed the advantages of living in this country, were not called up there would be bitterness in this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: There was no bitterness in the case of the six counties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a matter upon which anyone is entitled to his own opinion, but I should have thought that there would be little
1124
doubt about this. At any rate, that is my view. In the speech which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor delivered to us this evening, he quoted, as one of the great disadvantages which Ireland is going to suffer, these words:
"They would lose the advantage of participation in Commonwealth defence."
That is one of the things he quoted. But they have never shown any very great enthusiasm for participation in Commonwealth defence, and so I would not refer to that as a disadvantage at all. They took no part as a Government during the last war, and they have taken no part since.
I still feel that all these points, which noble Lords opposite may regard as small, pettifogging points, will raise very serious and practical difficulties if an attempt is made to adopt this twilight system—the tertium quid, as Lord Simon called it in dealing with this problem. Such examples might be multiplied endlessly. I do not say that these things will happen, but can the Government give us absolute assurances that they cannot happen? Then, what are to be the rights and privileges of Englishmen in Ireland? There is a rather obscure word—"comparable"—which is used in the Government statement. Does that mean identical? Will Englishmen living in Ireland vote at the Irish elections? If Parliament is going to accept this agreement, ought we not to know a little more about these things than we have yet been told?
Then there is the question of the "most favoured nation" treaties. I listened to an extremely interesting and erudite argument between the great lawyers whom we have in this House and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who has been in charge of the Government offices which deal with these matters. I admit that I am not an expert on this question. I should like to study what has been said by the Lord Chancellor. The only thing I would say to him is this. He seemed confident that no question over the "most favoured nation" treaties would arise. He said that: "It was most unlikely that this will ever be taken to The Hague." I do not think it is possible for us to take quite so rosy a view of the position as that. There are numbers of nations which have "most favoured nation" treaties with us, and

1125
they are not inhibited by subsequent agreements from bringing those matters to The Hague. I think the temptation would be considerable for them. I would urge upon the Lord Chancellor, and on the Government, that this is a vital matter. For on the result of such a case might depend the fate of our whole system of Imperial Preferences, upon which our trade is largely built up.
These are some of the detailed issues that arise. There is, however, a wider one, which is causing us on this side of the House deep concern. What is the effect of this recent Irish settlement to be upon the whole structure of the Commonwealth and Empire? After all, what is it that holds this Commonwealth together? What is the basis of that family relationship which differentiates us from other nations? It is allegiance to the King. It is the fact that all these great countries owe loyalty to the same King. Discard that common link, and very likely there will be nothing left but what I think Mr. Menzies called a series of watered-down alliances. On such a basis, I gravely fear that the Commonwealth could not possibly endure. I may be wrong, but I feel it in my bones that, once we get there, we are on a very slippery slope indeed. That seems to me to be the danger of the present settlement. In order to gain some temporary illusory advantage, we cut away the only firm basis, the rock upon which the Commonwealth has always stood and weathered all the storms that have beset it. That is the risk that the Government are running. I cannot believe that any temporary convenience in regard to Eire itself justifies it.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has told us that the Government agreed to this settlement only under pressure from other Imperial Governments.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Not at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Please do not take that line. That would be quite wrong. I said that the other Commonwealth Governments hoped that this would be the line we would take. There was no pressure put upon us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I received the impression that the Lord Chancellor had said that, if we had been
1126
there, we would have seen them absolutely united in favour of this case. I do not wish to misrepresent the Lord Chancellor—indeed, it is unnecessary to do so for the argument of my case. I would like to hear a little more about this aspect. I should like to read a little more about what the Commonwealth statesmen say on this question.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Samuel, quoted some remarks made by Mr. Chifley. No doubt, those remarks were very relevant and convenient, from the point of view of the case he was making in his speech. I do not make any criticism of him for quoting what he did. But he did not quote the rather less convenient remarks of Mr. St. Laurent, the Prime Minister of Canada, who expressed serious doubts as to the effect of this agreement on Imperial Preference. His words, which appeared just after the news of this agreement, were reported in The Times on November 26 of this year:
"In trade relations the question arises whether tariff rights given to Eire would entitle countries that have most-favoured-nation agreements with Canada to the same rights."
That is exactly the point we have been making here this afternoon. That is the consideration that is troubling us on this side of the House. We are really worried about it.
We do not think that it is a question that can be slurred over. We feel it is a situation which ought to be cleared up. We cannot help feeling that, if the other Empire Governments had been given a stronger lead by the United Kingdom Government, a very different decision would have been reached. When the British Nationality Bill came up for consideration we were told the same things as we have been told to-day. But, after what we have heard since, I am exceedingly doubtful whether the people from the Dominions were so enthusiastic about the British Nationality Bill as we were told at that time.
My Lords, the Government have asked—and I think it perfectly fair that they should—"What would you have done in similar circumstances?" That is not a question which it would be right for the Opposition to burke, and, indeed, the answer, to me, is a very simple one. I would not in any way have quarrelled with the decision of the Government

1127
of Eire to leave the Commonwealth: they have a perfect right to do so if they want. It is entirely their affair, and it would be wrong if we questioned their right. But I would have pointed out to them that there were certain results which would inevitably flow from their decision. One of them would be that their nationals would become foreigners in all the countries of the Empire and, as foreigners, would lose the advantages accruing from membership of the Commonwealth. I would have emphasised the difficult questions which could arise over Imperial Preference, and pointed out the danger that might face the Empire and Eire itself.
If Eire wished to enter into negotiations, like other foreign countries, over treaties of mutual advantage to her and to us—however farreaching those treaties might be—I should have been very ready to meet her. I was entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, said in regard to this matter. By all means, let us co-operate. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said co-operation was very important. I entirely agree with him; of course it is. We do not want to be on permanent bad terms with the Irish, and I would be very ready to negotiate with them; but not on a basis of a special relationship which does not, in fact, exist. She could not, and should not, enjoy the advantages of membership of the British Commonwealth, without satisfying the necessary pre-conditions. That, my Lords, if the Government would only recognise it, is, I believe, the overwhelming view of the British people at this time. Mr. Costello himself would certainly have had no reason for complaint, and I am sure would not have complained at such an attitude on our part. In a recent speech he used these words:
"I counted up the pros and cons of being inside the Commonwealth and couldn't find a single advantage."
Mr. Costello presumably, therefore, would be rather relieved at being rid of what he obviously regards as serious inconveniences.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would like, if I may, to return for one moment to the word "regard," which occupied so prominent a place in the Government statement on November 25. When your Lordships were children (if I may take
1128
you back so far) there were probably some of you who indulged in childish games which began with the words "Let's pretend" this or that. I cannot help thinking that, in effect, that is the real meaning of the Government's word "regard." The Government say "Let's pretend that Eire is not in the category of foreign nations, and that Eire citizens are not foreigners." But, my Lords, they are. This is not the time for pretences of that kind; this is a time for both countries to face the hard realities that have been created by the action of the Eire Government.
If the Government can convince your Lordships—and they have not convinced me yet, I am afraid; I do not know that I can speak for everybody in this House—that Eire is still, in spite of recent legislation, in a position which differentiates her entirely in national and international law from other foreign countries, that no doubt would make a real difference to our attitude to the settlement, though even then we should have some serious doubts as to its repercussions on the general structure of the Commonwealth. But if, on the other hand, after further consideration, we succeed in convincing the Government that our anxieties have real substance, I submit that the right course before them is to reconsider the whole question urgently with the other Governments of the Empire, with a view to adopting some modification of their present policy which avoids the manifold dangers to which, as a result of this settlement, this country and the Empire are now exposed.
7.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess that we have had an exceedingly interesting debate. I think it is fair to say that amongst the numerous questions which were put to us and the suggestions of difficulties that might present themselves owing to this act of the Eire Government, there was not one that I can remember which had not been discussed in great detail by the experts who advised the Government, and particularly by those associated with the Lord Chancellor. I do not think one single question has been mentioned to-day which was not presented to us in the position with which we were confronted. Everybody knows that the position was not of our making. We were

1129
suddenly confronted with this decision on the part of the Eire Government. I am glad to associate myself with the rest of your Lordships in saying that it was not for us to challenge their decision. Nobody has challenged it; we quite accept it. But we were suddenly confronted with it, and the question we had to ask ourselves was: What are we going to do? That was the question, and I would say that many of the conundrums which have been presented to us this afternoon, together with a great many of the questions raised by the noble Marquess, may, in fact, never emerge at all.
If we had waited until we could have a definite answer to all those complex and difficult questions, the whole case would have been lost. We should still have been waiting, because I can quite imagine that a number of eminent lawyers arguing on some of the questions would keep themselves and the Court occupied for a very long time. As practical people who have to do with the affairs of the nation, it was just an impossibility for us to wait, or to be expected to wait, until there was received from some body or other an authoritative reply to the numerous questions such as have been showered on us this afternoon. It was not, in fact, practical politics. We were confronted with this situation and we had to decide what we were going to do about it.
Perhaps I might be permitted one short digression, to pay a tribute to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who was, I think, really at his best this afternoon. It made me think of days gone by, when I was a member of the House of Commons and the noble Marquess's predecessors made those dreadful blunders. If it had not been for those blunders this issue would never have arisen. We should never have had all the miseries we had to endure year after year for many years past. All that came back to my mind while the noble Viscount was speaking—and, indeed, how true it is! This would never have arisen if the Conservative Party had had a little more statesmanship to influence their decisions. My Lords, I hope they are not going to make the same mistake again.
The Eire Government repealed or proposed to repeal this Statute. What did it amount to? It has been described in legal terms, and it is not for me to try
1130
to repeat them. The noble Marquess described it as "a tenuous link," and he then used other words, describing in various forms of tenuity, what it was. He attached great importance to it. Did that "tenuous link" place the Irish ports at our disposal when we were fighting for our lives? No—not that tenuous link to which so much importance is now attached. We were denied the use of the Irish ports. Eire had representatives in Berlin—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that the noble Viscount has entirely misunderstood my argument. Perhaps I put it very badly. It was the existence of these links—these tenuous, constitutional links—which enabled us to differentiate between Ireland and other nations in international affairs. The question of Irish ports has nothing to do with that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My point is that the tenuous link represents such an extraordinarily tenuous argument. That link was not worth anything—it did not amount to anything; it was not a link at all. We all knew that. Therefore what has really happened, or is happening, is what you might call recognising the realities of the case. At all events, we were confronted with that situation.
The noble Marquess has asked a number of questions about the views of the Dominions. It so happened—and this was a very fortunate circumstance—that this declaration by Mr. Costello was made at the time when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were assembled with us. That was exceedingly fortunate. We were, I agree, taken aback—it was a surprise to us. It was indeed. We did not know anything about it beforehand—certainly when we had the Nationality Act before us we had never dreamt of it. But, as I say, we happened to have the Dominion Prime Ministers or other representatives of the States of the Commonwealth with us here, and we talked the matter over with them in an informal way, in the first instance. What was their immediate reaction? They said in effect: "We have large numbers of Irish people in our countries. Many of them were bred in Eire."The fact is, of course, that large sections of the populations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand consist of Irish people or their descendants. Representatives of those countries were, like us, very anxious

1131
to explore the situation thoroughly and to see what was best to be done in the circumstances.
Then my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was deputed to get together his experts and examine with great care the various issues which were presented by this decision. He did so. I cannot profess that I have, myself, attempted to read all the learned memoranda which has been drawn up. I was quite willing to be guided by the noble and learned Viscount. Still, all the issues were explored and discussed with great frankness with the Dominion representatives. Then they had to go over to Paris to deal with questions at the Assembly there. In order to carry this matter further when we had had the advantage of this various advice, my noble and learned friend went to Paris himself, and representatives of Eire, with great good will, also went there. The whole issue was discussed in an atmosphere of the greatest friendliness, and at the same time in an atmosphere of realities. We had to take our decision in the light of the cases that were presented to us. And what really was the issue? That issue was, and is, governed in the Dominions, the other States of the Commonwealth, and here, also, by the facts of the situation. Were we suddenly to use the term "foreign"—I will come to this matter in a few minutes—in the way in which I rather suspect the noble Marquess would have liked us to use it; or were we to act in the spirit represented by the noble Viscount; that is, in the spirit of friendliness, the spirit of looking forward to friendship in the future? Was that to be the guiding influence in our minds?
Clearly, in that regard we had to take account not only of the lessons of the past but also of the facts of the present. One fact is that in all our Services, up and down our country, there are thousands of people of Irish descent. Some of them are in very high positions. In fact, one of the best memoranda drafted for us to consider had been drafted by a man whom the noble Marquess, no doubt, would count as a foreigner and would boot out of the Civil Service. I suppose that is what the noble Marquess would do, but we do not take the same view. There were 40,000 Irish citizens who volunteered and fought for us in the
1132
recent war. We cannot disregard all this part of our history. These people are in our life, from one end of the country to another. It was facts such as these which naturally influenced our decision. We cannot, and we could not—and what applies to us applies to every member of the Commonwealth sitting round the table with us—say, in the light of the snapping of this tenuous link, which was of no value when it was a link, that we would treat all these people as foreigners, with all the difficulties that that would bring upon us and upon them. We were bound to have regard to the facts of the case. It would have caused endless and needless dislocation and damage, both to us and to them, if we had treated the matter in any other spirit.
Let me also say this. I cannot, of course, go back a very long way, as human history goes; but so far as I have known our relations with Eire they have never before been so friendly as they are now. During the last two or three years we have deliberately sought friendly co-operation with Eire, and it is unthinkable that we should have had Irishmen sitting round the table with us, discussing the difficulty in a common spirit of trying to arrive at a friendly solution, unless we had had a spirit of true friendship and of trust between us. And that is what we have got.
I pass from various issues that arise out of preference, or difficulties that may arise. I think that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack replied to them completely, and it is not for me, who am no lawyer, to attempt to add anything to what he said. I will answer a specific question which was put by the noble Marquess with regard to Ulster. He asked a specific question and I will give him a specific reply. We were asked by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—who, I may say, was fully informed about the whole of this matter in the most friendly conversations, and so was well aware of all that was going on—if we could give an assurance that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is not to be prejudiced by Eire ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister here, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, gave him the assurance that the

1133
constitutional position of Northern Ireland would be fully safeguarded, and in pursuance of that he made this statement in the House of Commons on November 25:
"The view of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has always been that no change should be made in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland's free agreement."
And we stand by that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Thank you very much.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That, I think, is a sufficient reply. Many a time when this question was brought up to me or mentioned to me when I was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, I said: "What you Southerners have to do is to persuade the men of Northern Ireland that they want union as well as you. If you all want it, North and South, we shall be very happy to see your desires realised."
A case was presented by the noble Marquess, I think, in an aspect that does not accord with realities. It is not a question of saying that you are either members of the Commonwealth and remain as hitherto or you are completely foreign, as if you were inhabitants of Yugoslavia. I would ask noble Lords to think a little longer on this question of the continuous development of the Commonwealth. It has altered a great deal, even in our lifetime. The Statute of Westminster was a landmark in the history of the Commonwealth, and that is not necessarily to be the last word in the development of this association of nations. We have to look forward to the development of wider forms of the association between nations, and we must not be afraid to look at them. In our contemplation of these developments, I hope we are not to be tied too much by the stricter definitions that might have applied in times past.
Finally, I cannot finish this debate without expressing a real sense of disappointment. We took the decision which we did take, and on which we are acting, in the light of all the circumstances—and I am sure it was the right decison—which accorded with statesmanship. I am disappointed that we have not had a vestige of a suggestion of what else we could have done. The only suggestion
1134
that has been made is that we should have waited until somebody gave us a reply to all these questions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount is wrong; it is unfair of him to say that. I went out of my way to say that I would be asked this question and that I was quite ready to give the reply, and I gave it. I can repeat it at length, if the noble Viscount desires, but it was perfectly clear. I said that we have no quarrel with Ireland. She has the absolute right to leave the Commonwealth. But by that fact, by law, she automatically makes of herself a foreign country and of her people foreigners. That was a fact which had to be faced. It might be inconvenient for her and for us, but it was a legal fact, and it was no good trying to gloss it over. That is what I said. There is no question of months and months of inquiry by eminent lawyers. It is a question of coming to a decision on principle. His Majesty's Government came to one decision and came to it very rapidly. I have come to another, and I still think mine is the right one.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad that the noble Marquess has amplified his statement, but I do not understand it to be a clear reply. If it is, it is the most unfortunate reply he could possibly have given. If I understand it to have any meaning at all, I would have said that he meant that from this date every citizen of Eire is a foreigner, and we are going to treat him as a foreigner. We are going to apply all alien restrictions, make him report to the police and get him out of the Civil Service.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount has become the most unfair arguer I have ever heard. In the last two or three debates he has deliberately misrepresented me. I never said these things. The noble Viscount knows our attitude. The Government, unfortunately for us, are not standing up for the principles in which we all believe. The noble Viscount is trying to wriggle out of this. What I said was that the position automatically existed that, in law, citizens of Eire would be internationally foreigners, a statement with which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor himself has agreed. I do not think this halfway house is going

1135
to work. I think it is going to be utterly disastrous. I would conclude any agreements of mutual advantage to both countries, but I do not believe that the status which the Government are trying to establish will work. It is going to be an enduring injury to the Commonwealth and Empire.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Your Lordships will bear in mind that what I was putting before the House was the actual result of what the noble Marquess was saying he would do. He said he would regard them as foreigners and treat them as such.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said "warn them." If the noble Viscount will read my speech, he will find that I said I would warn them of what would happen.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Irish people were told in full what the various consequences would be. If the policy which the noble Marquess recommends had been adopted, it would have necessarily been followed by the consequences I have mentioned. If we had said they were as much foreigners as a Frenchman or a Yugoslav, those would have been the consequences, and there would be no escape from them. I know that the noble Marquess did not say this, but I am saying that that is what would have happened in consequence. If they had been treated as foreigners, in the usually accepted sense, that is what would have happened, and that would have been a first-class disaster. Such a disaster or anything like it had to be avoided at all costs. The last thing in the world I want to do, as the noble Marquess knows, is to misinterpret what he says. I do not wriggle out of things, and I do not seek to be unfair. If he thinks over all the implications and inevitable consequences of what he has recommended, he will see that the things I have said would have followed. In my view, confronted as we were by the situation presented to us, we had no alternative but in wisdom and friendship to come to the decision we have come to.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: The noble Viscount has not answered the question I put to him, and perhaps I may put it again. Does he believe that common
1136
citizenship is an essential condition of unity in the Commonwealth?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is a question I should put to the lawyers. I think we all want to have common citizenship in the Commonwealth, but Ireland is not in the Commonwealth. She is putting herself out.
7.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think it will be agreed that we have had an important debate. It is a debate which has led to some valuable explanations which we shall all want to study. I was a little sorry that in the course of his reply the noble Viscount opposite spoke as if there were some division in this House on whether we should approach this very difficult question in what he called "a spirit of friendliness." I do not know of anybody who does not wish to approach it in that way. I am bound to say that I did not think it necessary, or indeed relevant, to the particular questions which I was raising, to begin by protesting that I had a life-long belief in the necessity of meeting, and meeting entirely, the claims of the Irish Nationalist movement. This attempt to draw a distinction between people on that point is rather absurd.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I agree with that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: There happen to be three people left in this country whose names are on the back of the Government of Ireland Bill. One of them is the present Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Churchill; another of them is the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel; and the third is myself. I have never changed in the very least in my belief that that ought to have been done long ago, and I entirely share the feeling which the noble Viscount expresses, that, looking back in history, a sad mistake was made. But that is not the point of this debate. The point is: Is there a difference between being divorced and being separated but unhappily married? Or is the argument this: that there is really no difference; it is only the last strand? There is all the difference in the world between them.
While I am sure the Lord Chancellor has done his best to produce some reasons, I must respectfully beg to say

1137
that I do not think what he has said will convince many lawyers that, in an international sense, an independent Republic of Ireland is not a foreign State. The circumstance that there was only a strand left has nothing to do with it. The point is that, so long as there is a connection, even although it is a tenuous connection, it is right to contend that really and truly this is not, in international law, a foreign State. Take away that strand, and a wholly different question arises.
The Lord Chancellor, in his very ingenious reply, seemed to me to adopt two perfectly inconsistent positions. One was this: "Just let me point out, as I have pointed out to the Irish before, all that they are losing by this new step. They are losing consultation; they are losing joint defence; and they are losing the communication of confidential information. They are going outside and shutting the door." I am sure he deplores it, and I know I deplore it, but what is the good of saying that that is happening and at the same moment saying: "Well, really our connections were merely a strand and there is no substantial difference." He may be right—it is not for me to say—in advancing the view that if this question did arise the independent Republic of Eire—which will be at liberty, of course, if it feels inclined, to take sides in a war with our enemy—would not be said to be internationally a foreign State. It is not for me to say more than that I do not think everybody would agree with him.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I ask the noble Viscount a question? Would not his argument apply equally, under the Statute of Westminster, to any member of the Commonwealth?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes, of course it would. I thought it was agreed that if any member of the Commonwealth went completely outside the Commonwealth it could no longer be contended that that member, in that new position—say, as a foreign Republic—was internationally other than a foreign State. That is the question I put. That question is not to be answered by saying: "Let us approach this in a spirit of friendliness." Everybody wants to be friendly. I am not going to spend time talking about my own relations with Southern Ireland,
1138
but they have been in my mind ever since I was a child. There is nobody living, I think, who more clearly understands the deep impulses in the Irish breast—and, as I said the other day, Ireland is a mother country and the Irish a different race—which have led the Irish to this view.
But that is not the question. The question is: What is the result of it? While, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury has said, that circumstance is no reason why we should not seek some means of accommodation, it is a reason for asking: Is it necessary to say, "I was suddenly faced with this, so what else could I do?" That is what we have just been told. What would have been the result if this had been firmly pointed out, and if it had been insisted that we must consider the matter, because it might vitally affect our preference arrangements? I am interested to hear that there has been as much consideration of this matter as we have been told, and that those who are responsible have come to this conclusion. So far from wishing to be difficult, I would say, if it is so, so much the better. But I still think it was a very risky thing to take that attitude without more consideration.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? As one who has not taken part in the debate, I would like to put it to him that we on these Benches are not at all clear as to what noble Lords opposite would have done. Would they have made Irish citizens foreigners; would they not have made them foreigners? Or are they not certain what they would have done?
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has stated it quite clearly, and if the noble Lord has not followed it—
LORD PAKENHAM: None of us has, and we have all been listening.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry. Noble Lords had better read in Hansard what the noble Marquess said. When you are discussing this, the question is: With how much emphasis did you point out what are the dangers and risks which Ireland will run?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not wish to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount unnecessarily, as he knows, but

1139
all these matters were fully placed before the Irish visitors.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I would accept not only that but anything which the noble Viscount told me. However, I think we shall agree that the least satisfactory way is to look into the British Nationality Act (I was assured that when that Act was being passed no member of the Government ever dreamed that it would be used in this way), and say: "What a lucky thing. Here is a phrase in the British Nationality Act;"—which was never intended to be used in this way—"it will just fit the case." That does not seem to me to be the best way in which to deal with this very difficult problem. At the same time, our ultimate object, which is that we should find an arrangement which will stand and be satisfactory all round, is exactly the same. If the Government have found it, nobody is more delighted than I am. But I must say that the result of this debate on me is to leave me filled with considerable anxiety.
There is one thing which the Lord Chancellor said which I would like to underline before I withdraw my Motion for Papers. It is this. I think I understood him to say—and I am glad he did say it—that he, at least, regards this particular case as standing by itself. I think that is most important. I gather that the Leader of the House agrees that it should be clearly understood that this is not a precedent for what might be claimed or developed elsewhere. If that is so, then we have to deal with this matter by itself. I have heard it argued in exactly the contrary sense, that it was necessary to do this, because this was the best way in which to allay the anxieties of other parts of the Commonwealth. I hope that is not so. I sympathise from the bottom of my heart with the desire to reach the most satisfactory and
1140
friendly arrangement. I think our debate has been useful, not because we have differed, in the least, as to the object we have in view, but because we now have a much clearer explanation, for the House and for the country, as to the way in which the Government have felt it had to happen. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RECALL OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE PENSIONERS BILL
7.39 p.m.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.

LACE INDUSTRY (LEVY) ORDER, 1948
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle; That the Order is not founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

LEE VALLEY AND LUTON AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1948
Special Procedure Order (together with a certificate from the Minister of Health): Laid before the House, pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-minutes before eight o'clock.