Sitting of 20 November 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Anglo-American Trade
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade what communications he has had with the United States Government regarding the repeal of the "Buy American" Act as recommended by the Paley Commission; and if he will make a statement on the effects such a repeal would have on British exports to the United States of America.
    The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): The Report of the Paley Commission to the President of the United States is a domestic matter and there has been no communication with the United States Government arising out of any of its recommendations. It is not possible to make any estimate in figures of the extent to which British exports to the United States might increase if the "Buy American" Act were repealed, but it could be substantial having regard to the amount that is spent by Federal and other agencies on equipment that might be imported.
    Mr. Osborne: While recognising that the recommendation of the Paley Commission is a domestic matter for the American people, may I ask whether the Government will take any legitimate opportunities they have to press home to the American Government the desirability of reducing their tariffs, which would not affect their domestic trade a great deal, but would make a great deal of difference to our exports to them?
    Mr. Mackeson: The "Buy American" Act is certainly one of the matters we have under consideration with a view to raising it with the American Government at an appropriate time.

    Exports
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the fall in exports for the third quarter of 1952 to £574 million from £689 million in the corresponding period of 1951; and if he will make a statement on the position.
    Mr. Mackeson: The two figures mentioned by my hon. Friend are not quite comparable. The first excludes, and the second includes, the value of re-exports. Excluding the latter throughout, the value of United Kingdom exports fell from £656 million to £574 million between the two quarters mentioned. The principal reason for this fall has been the general recession in consumer demand and the severe import restrictions imposed by many sterling area countries last spring following upon unusually large imports by them from the United Kingdom in the latter part of 1951 and the first quarter of 1952.
    These sterling area countries had to take drastic action to restore a balance in their external accounts which inevitably meant a sharp reduction in their imports from the United Kingdom. Exports to the non-sterling world as a whole have been fairly well maintained.
    Mr. Osborne: Can the Minister hold out any hope that in the near future these restrictions in the sterling area on our exports will cease? Will my hon. Friend follow the example of the late Sir Stafford Cripps and warn the country that unless we have greater exports we shall have widespread unemployment and lower rations?
    Mr. Mackeson: It is quite clear that overseas market conditions have become more difficult lately. At the time to which my hon. Friend referred in his Question there was a very high demand from Australia and I am glad to say there is a slight improvement there now.
    Mr. Edward Davies: Do not the figures, particularly the export figures for the third quarter, show a great recession of trade with Australasia and the necessity for replanning our trade so that we shall not be in a capricious position but can have more regularity in Commonwealth and Western European trade?
    Mr. Mackeson: We want to trade with the sterling area as much as we can. It is unfortunate that prices of raw

    2015
    materials such as wool have made it impossible for our friends to buy from us.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is not the real reason for the fall in our exports the continuance by this country of tariffs, controls and restrictions on international trade? Does not my hon. Friend realise that we shall not recover in this country until all these tariffs, controls and regulations are taken off?
    Mr. Awbery: Is not this the cause of unemployment in the ports of the country, about which we have heard so much in the last week? Does it not show the trend, not only in the docks, but throughout the whole of the industry of this country?
    Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. There is no longer the easy market which existed after the war. Some of our friends, notably the three Southern Dominions, have not been able to buy from us, but we hope that now the pipeline has been emptied things might improve.

    Cuban Sugar
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade what further discussions have taken place with Cuba since July with a view to obtaining some of the surplus sugar available in return for sterling to be spent in the country; and with what result.
    Mr. Mackeson: There have been no such discussions.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the International Sugar Conference last month, in London, the Cuban representatives said that from a huge surplus of sugar they would like to sell 500,000 tons to Britain at 3d. a lb.? If it is a question of dollars could we not have fewer cigars and more sugar? Sugar should have the highest priority.
    Mr. Mackeson: The hon. Member asked me if we had had direct discussions and the answer is "No." With regard to the question of payment in inconvertible sterling, the trouble is that we would be simply building up a contingent liability later on.
    Mr. Profumo: Could we not get the sugar if we paid in gold, which we might save by stopping the importation of sugar substitutes from the Continent?
    Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. If we did we should be damaging our trade with Europe severely.

    Shetland (Development)
    Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the possibility of giving assistance similar to that offered to the Buckie-Peterhead area to areas such as Shetland which have suffered high and continuous unemployment for many years.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I am informed that, so far as their resources allow, the Development Commissioners will be prepared to consider on their merits proposals for schemes in Shetland or other rural areas from applicants eligible under the Development and Road Improvement Fund Act, 1909, as amended.
    Mr. Grimond: While thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him if he agrees that unemployment in Shetland and other Highland areas has been considerably higher than in the Buckie-Peterhead area? Can he say whether any positive action is being taken by the Government or the Commissioners to find suitable light industries for those areas?
    Mr. Strauss: The area referred to in the Question presented, in our view, certain characteristics which made the Development Commission's methods particularly applicable. But, as I said in my answer, that does not mean that the area about which he specifically asked is excluded.

    Statutory Instruments (Controls)
    Sir J. Crowderasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Statutory Instruments he has made during the past 12 months abolishing or moderating existing controls.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Thirty-one, Sir.
    Sir J. Crowder: Will my hon. and learned Friend do his best to remove more controls, if possible, during the next 12 months and keep the good work going?
    Mr. Strauss: It is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government to get rid of unnecessary controls.

    Napped Cotton Goods (Description)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the unsatisfactory position concerning the labelling of goods, irresponsible distributors are able to pass off on the public napped cotton goods as suede; and whether, as the leather industry is disturbed by such practices, he will instruct the British Standards Institution regarding the urgent necessity of clarifying the position.
    Mr. H. Strauss: It is an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, to apply to goods a false description as to the material of which they are composed or to sell goods to which such false description is applied. Any person can institute proceedings if he considers that the term "suede" is being wrongly applied.
    I understand that the British Standards Institution has circulated draft standards for cotton apparel cloths to all interests concerned, including the leather industry, and will, no doubt, consider any comments which may be received.
    Miss Burton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I know that and that I have seen these drafts? Would he not agree that there is a tendency in advertising to use terms of high quality to describe second-rate goods? Is he further aware that to the shopping public the term "suede" belongs to the leather industry and not to the cotton industry? Would he ask the British Standards Institution to expedite this matter?
    Mr. Strauss: I do not think that any requests from my Department are necessary to the British Standards Institution. They are certainly getting on with the job.

    Rubber and Tin (Exports to U.S.S.R. and China)
    Mr. F. Macleanasked the President of the Board of Trade what exports of rubber and tin from British territories to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China have been licensed during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Mackeson: Ninety-nine thousand four hundred and ninety-one tons of rubber were licensed and exported to Russia from the United Kingdom and
    2018
    British Colonial Territories in the 12 months ended 31st October, 1952. Exports of tin to Russia are not subject to licence, but are closely watched; in the year ended 31st July, the latest for which figures are available, exports from the United Kingdom and British Colonial Territories amounted to 350 tons. There have been no exports to China of either rubber or tin from these sources since June, 1951.
    Mr. Maclean: Does my hon. Friend really think that it is a good thing to go on exporting what is, in effect, war material to a country which is actively supporting our enemy?
    Mr. Mackeson: We are licensing at the same rate as in the past and taking into consideration the peace-time demands of Russia in doing so.
    Mr. Paton: Would the Minister continue to resist such demands since Russia and China can obtain the supplies quite easily from other sources?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is the accepted opinion, quite outside any question of party controversy, that the restoration of world trade conditions depends upon the development of under-developed areas, that China is largely an undeveloped area and that one cannot industrially develop an undeveloped area without rubber and without tin?
    Mr. Maclean: Will my hon. Friend say whether it is the object of this country to develop Chinese industry in view of the way in which China is behaving?
    Mr. Mackeson: I think that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on these problems has been made abundantly clear.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that we shall have less grain from Russia this year, which will have a very bad effect on our own industry? Should we not export rubber and wool in quantities to match the supplies that we want in return?
    Mr. Mackeson: We are balancing our exports to Russia in the same way as our predecessors did, on the basis of the peace-time needs of Russia, in order not to make rubber available for strategic purposes.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that what we tried to do before was to get as much grain and timber as possible and that, in return, we sold wool and rubber?

    British Cars (Exports to France)
    Mr. F. Macleanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, while French cars are imported into this country, there is no corresponding arrangement allowing the import of British cars into France; and what steps he is taking to correct this anomaly.
    Mr. Mackeson: Apart from a few cars in connection with the Motor Show, licences are not being issued for commercial imports of motor cars from any country. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    My hon. Friend may have in mind, however, the small production of cars assembled in this country from parts in the main imported from France. That is a long-standing arrangement and the arms concerned conform to the same pattern of home and export trade as do other manufacturers.

    Coronation Pottery Exports
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent earthenware and china pottery is being manufactured to commemorate the Coronation.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I understand that preparations are being widely made in the pottery industry for the manufacture of Coronation souvenirs both for the export and home markets and that the industry should be able to meet all the demands made upon it.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to expedite the export of Coronation mugs to the Colonial Empire.
    Mr. Mackeson: There are no restrictions on the import into the Colonial Empire of Coronation mugs made in the United Kingdom; and I am confident that the pottery industry can be relied upon to expedite exports of this ware without any special help from the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be great gratification in the country at his answer?
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. Friend take active steps to expedite the export of left-handed mugs to Moscow?
    Dr. Stross: Will the Minister constantly bear in mind that in North Staffordshire the only mugs that are manufactured are made out of earthenware or china, and no other substance?

    Industrial Estates, Lanarkshire
    Mr. Timmonsasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total area of factory space in the Lanarkshire industrial estates, including Queenslie Estate; and what are the number of persons employed in each of these estates.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The total area of factory space on industrial estates in Lanarkshire and on the Queenslie Estate, is 2,453,000 square feet and at the end of August the number of persons employed on these estates was 9,498. In addition, there are factories on individual sites in Lanarkshire administered by Scottish Industrial Estates, Limited, with a total area of 1,869,000 square feet, where, at the end of August, 5,966 persons were employed.
    I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the numbers employed in each industrial estate.
    Mr. Timmons: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman now satisfied that these estates have not served the purpose for which they were originally intended, which was to provide employment for the people in that Development Area? Will the Board of Trade take this question up seriously and ensure that some firms are coming to Lanarkshire to provide such employment?
    Mr. Strauss: I apologise to the hon. Member for having missed a part of his supplementary question, but he will observe that the Question on the Order Paper only asks for figures, which I have given him.
    Mr. Timmons: Is the Minister aware that I put a Question on the Order Paper on Tuesday of last week for a Written answer from the Board of Trade and that up to now I have not received a reply to that Question, which has a bearing on both the Questions which are in my name on today's Order Paper?
    Following is the list:
    The number of persons employed in each estate at the end of August, the latest date for which information is available, was:

    Chapelhall

    466

    Carfin

    350

    Newhouse

    1,795

    Coatbridge

    387

    Blantyre

    2,109

    Larkhall

    1,554

    Queenslie

    2,837

    Total

    9,498

    Vactric Factory, Scotland
    Mr. Timmonsasked the President of the Board of Trade what firm is taking over the factory which is being vacated by Vactric; and how many persons they hope to employ.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Negotiations are in progress with a company who hope to employ a substantial number of persons, but I am not at liberty to disclose the name of the company at present.
    Mr. Timmons: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that for some considerable time the Vactric Company have been preparing to vacate this site? Is he further aware that this week or next week there will be an additional 800 people on the unemployed register? Could he say what firm is likely to come into the area, and when? Is he aware that if we are to wait for some time for it to come and wait while it is tooling-up the factory the unemployment figures in the area, which are already the highest in Scotland, will be increased?
    Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman cannot have looked at the Question which he has put on the Paper, to which I have given him an answer.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look very carefully into this matter? This is one of the finest factory buildings in Scotland, and, so far, it has not been properly occupied.
    Mr. Strauss: I share the hope of the right hon. Gentleman for successful negotiations. Negotiations are taking place, but I do not think it would serve any useful purpose if I were to add anything to the answer I have given.

    U.K.—Saskatchewan Trade
    Captain Ryderasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to assist the Premier of
    2022
    Saskatchewan during his visit to this country for the purpose of promoting United Kingdom trade and participation in the development of Saskatchewan's natural resources.
    Mr. Mackeson: Her Majesty's Government welcome the visit to this country of the Premier of Saskatchewan, and both my right hon. Friend and I look forward to meeting him while he is here. We hope that Mr. Douglas will be able to tell us how we can help, and that we can discuss with him ways of promoting United Kingdom trade and participation in the development of Saskatchewan's natural resources.
    Captain Ryder: Can we be assured that this distinguished Canadian will receive every possible assistance, bearing in mind that he has taken a most commendable initiative in coming over here for a very worthwhile object?
    Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir.

    Copyright Committee (Report)
    Mr. J. Hudsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been able to give detailed consideration to the Report of the Copyright Committee; and whether he hopes to introduce legislation during the present Parliament.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The Report of the Copyright Committee is being carefully considered. No decision has yet been taken regarding legislation to give effect to its recommendations.
    Mr. Hudson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that the Report dealing with this matter called attention to the extreme confusion of the law concerning copyright and the necessity for a new codification, as it is so long since anything was done about the matter? Should not greater urgency be shown by the Board of Trade in this matter?
    Mr. Strauss: I did not intend my reply to the hon. Member's Question to be discouraging. This is a very important Report and it requires most careful consideration.

    Sugar Fat and Fondant Imports
    Mr. W. R. A. Hudsonasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities and values of fondant, sugar

    2023
    fat mixtures and piping jelly, respectively, which were imported during the last six months of 1951 and the import quotas fixed for the same products for the six months to 31st December, 1952, respectively.
    Mr. Mackeson: The quotas fixed for the last six months of 1952 for imports from Western European and certain other non-sterling countries of sugar fat mixtures and fondant are £1 million and £750,000 respectively. There is no quota for piping jelly, but certain licences have been issued to enable importers to fulfil contracts which they had entered into prior to the imposition of import restrictions on this item.
    Imports of sugar fat mixtures from the same countries in the last six months of 1951 amounted to 359,125 cwts., valued at £2,808,505. Imports of fondant and piping jelly were not separately recorded in the official statistics. Imports of fondant in the calendar year 1951 are estimated to have been £8 million.
    Mr. Hudson: Would the Minister not agree that it would be far better to import fewer of these extensive manufactured products and more of the raw materials with which they are made? Will the Minister keep that constantly in mind?
    Mr. Mackeson: We are taking all the sugar we can get from the sterling area, and towards the end of this month we shall be making an announcement of the purchase for next year.
    Mr. Profumo: Could my hon. Friend tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government have been into a detailed examination of the possibility of giving up these imports altogether, and, if they have, what reaction these European Governments have taken to such a step? My own information is that the European Governments themselves regard these sugar substitutes as something of a black market which has developed over recent years.
    Mr. Mackeson: We have looked into this matter. My hon. Friend's remarks are not applicable to every country, but perhaps he will await the announcement which will be given on about 25th November.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week in answer to my
    2024
    hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) the Minister said that to reduce these imports of fondants from European countries would damage our trading relations with these countries? In what way would our trading relations be damaged?
    Mr. Mackeson: If we deliberately try to exclude one industry or damage a particular country, naturally they resent it and take reciprocal action against us. We have to look at each country on its merits and talk to them and see that we do as little damage to our trading relations as possible.

    Coronation Visitors (Moored Ships)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement about the mooring of boats on the Thames to accommodate visitors to London for the Coronation.
    Mr. Mackeson: I am informed by the Port of London Authority that they have accepted applications for six ships to be moored in the Thames during the Coronation period. These should provide accommodation for about 3,400 visitors. Inquiries have been made about mooring two other ships in the Thames, and the P.L.A. are willing to give favourable consideration to such applications.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister do his best to ensure that if at all possible more ships should be moored, because this will considerably relieve the pressure on accommodation in London during the Coronation period, and will make it much easier and cheaper for visitors to spend the Coronation period here with us?
    Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir, and I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member and to other London Members for the interest that they have taken in this matter. There are, however, technical difficulties.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Will the licensing laws apply to these ships?
    Mr. Mackeson: I must have notice of that question.

    U.S. Recorded Programmes (Import)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the import ban on sound recordings by British orchestras for United States radio and television programmes, he will ban the import of similar recordings by United States orchestras pending the negotiation of fair reciprocal arrangements.
    Mr. Mackeson: So far as I am aware, no restrictions are imposed by the United States Government on imports of sound recordings made in this country. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If information is provided to the hon. Gentleman that such an import ban does exist, will he take the matter up with the American Government so as to ensure fair reciprocal arrangements?
    Mr. Mackeson: I shall be very pleased to look into it.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Did my hon. Friend consult the B.B.C. on this matter before he replied to this Question? Is he aware that, in fact, there are such restrictions so far as the networks are concerned? Is he further aware that this is largely due to the growth of restrictive practices of musicians' unions on both sides of the Atlantic, and will he do his best to make certain that no argument is put into the hands of Mr. Petrillo to enable this ban to be cancelled?
    Mr. Mackeson: I think my Department consulted the B.B.C., and, so far as I know, the information I have given to the House is correct.

    Printed Cotton Cloth
    Mr. Burdenasked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity in yards, and the value and countries of origin, of printed cotton cloth imported into the United Kingdom between 1st January and 30th September, 1952.
    Mr. Mackeson: Total imports into the United Kingdom of printed cotton cloth recorded during January-September, 1952, were 2,658,000 square yards valued at £408,000. As these imports were consigned from a large number of countries I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend ensure that where these materials can be manufactured equally well in this country licences are not issued? Is he aware that in the shops at present there are printed cottons from other European countries, which could quite well be manufactured in Lancashire?
    Mr. Mackeson: My hon. Friend is asking me to use quotas for protection rather than for balance of payments reasons, which I cannot promise to do.
    Following are the details:

    TOTAL IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM DURING JANUARY-SEPTEMBER, 1952

    Woven piece goods of cotton—printed

    Country of consignment*

    Square yards

    £

    Channel Islands

    174

    87

    Gibraltar

    240

    66

    Gold Coast

    2,081

    387

    Nigeria

    723

    93

    Union of South Africa

    10,117

    1,890

    Southern Rhodesia

    420

    53

    India

    6,770

    1,355

    Singapore

    9,059

    1,778

    Federation of Malaya

    23,580

    3,654

    Hong Kong

    1,841

    306

    Australia

    25,815

    3,936

    New Zealand

    319

    124

    Canada

    2,513

    713

    Bermuda

    18

    2

    Bahamas

    40

    6

    Jamaica

    53

    35

    Irish Republic

    15,077

    2,776

    Sweden

    73,601

    7,734

    Norway

    298

    78

    Denmark

    31,677

    6,395

    Poland

    35,639

    4,215

    Western Germany

    569,159

    102,805

    Netherlands

    51,937

    15,170

    Belgium

    9,994

    1,766

    France

    480,615

    86,276

    Switzerland

    60,598

    18,093

    Spain

    301,156

    31,049

    Italy

    303,129

    44,133

    Austria

    11,241

    1,616

    Czechoslovakia

    503,089

    41,762

    Greece

    29,430

    3,766

    Belgian Congo

    24

    3

    Lebanon

    4,860

    1,217

    Egypt

    7,181

    2,008

    Iran

    146

    43

    United States of America

    80,825

    21,539

    Peru

    4,877

    576

    TOTAL

    2,658,316

    407,505

    *The country of consignment is not necessarily the country of manufacture.

    Carnauba Wax
    Mr. H. Nichollsasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent licences have been granted to consumers

    2027
    for the importation of carnauba wax from the United States of America, payable in dollars; and for what amount.
    Mr. Mackeson: Two licences have been issued this year to import a total of 125 tons of carnauba wax from the United States at a value of £98,050. One of these licences was issued to a manufacturer for use in his own business and the other to an importer for sale to users.
    Mr. Nicholls: At a time when dollars are in short supply, would it not be better if the commodity came from Brazil, when it could be paid for in sterling?
    Mr. Mackeson: By the arrangement which was made we saved £100 a ton.
    Mr. Stokes: As one of the more ignorant Members of the House, may I ask what is carnauba wax, and what it is used for?
    Mr. Mackeson: It is required for the manufacture of boot polish and other products.

    Nylon Stockings
    Mr. Burdenasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider increasing the controlled price of imported nylon stockings for sale in this country.
    Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir.
    Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in an answer which was given to me last week, the President of the Board of Trade stated that licences would be issued to import foreign nylons, but under the present price control these nylons cannot be sold in the retail shops at the controlled price and show a reasonable profit? Will he ensure that if they are imported they do not go into the black market?
    Mr. Strauss: Certainly, steps will be taken to prevent a breach of the law, but it is our information that imports within the maximum prices at present laid down should be possible.
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure a reasonable supply of nylon stockings for the home market which will provide good wearing qualities.
    Mr. H. Strauss: It is for the industry to decide what kinds of nylon yarn to
    2028
    use for the manufacture of stockings in the light of demand at home and overseas. I understand that at least half the supplies for the home market are made from the heavier yarn which wears well.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my Question applies to the supply of nylon stockings for the home market and not to the quality of the nylon? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, who has always shown himself to be solicitous regarding women's interests, that nylons of a good, reliable wearing quality are now unprocurable?
    Mr. Strauss: I am instructed by my advisers that extreme fineness of texture can only be obtained at the cost of durability, and, therefore, I can only advise the hon. Lady to choose the quality which she more desires.
    Captain Pilkington: Can my hon. Friend give a similar assurance about the continued supply of new hats?
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British women always prefer 30 denier for good wearing qualities and 15 denier for glamour?
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated amount of nylon stockings available to the home market for 1953; and the amount available for 1952.
    Mr. H. Strauss: In the first 10 months of 1952 deliveries of nylon stockings to the home market amounted to approximately 64 million pairs. Exports must have the first call on our production of stockings from the limited amount of nylon yarn available, and the quantities of nylon stockings offered on the home market in 1953 will chiefly depend on the level of exports.
    Mrs. Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the quantity for 1953 will not fall below that for 1952?
    Mr. Strauss: I think it will be the view of all that exports must have the first call, but steps are being taken to increase the production of nylon yarn, which should ultimately make greater supplies available for both home and export purposes.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say how the 64 million pairs for the home market this year compares with last year and the year before that?
    Mr. Strauss: Not without notice, Sir.
    Mr. G. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present arrangements of his Department for allocating nylon yarn are reducing our own supplies for the home market, and not increasing them, at the very moment when he is allowing foreign supplies to enter?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is rather stupid that, at a time when we need to export nylons, we are importing them? If he does not think it is stupid, does he not think it was dishonest that when the Labour Party was doing exactly the same thing with porcelain baths and cement the Tory Party tried to make propaganda out of it?
    Mr. Strauss: I do not think the hon. Gentleman will find that great quantities are imported. He must be familiar from many answers which have been given that it is not right to exclude all imports.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Why was that not said when the Conservative Party was in Opposition?

    West African Furniture Imports
    Sir Edward Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade what change there has been, since the matter was raised in the House of Commons in April, 1948, in the policy of restricting the importation of West African furniture.
    Mr. Mackeson: Under an open general licence issued with effect from 15th February, 1951, imports of furniture from a number of countries, including British West Africa, were freed from import licensing restrictions; the only stipulations are that the furniture must be complete, or, if unassembled, must consist of parts of furniture forming a complete article, and that the furniture must not be upholstered with fabric containing more than 5 per cent. of cashmere. Metal furniture of all kinds may also be imported from British West Africa under open general licence issued with effect from 5th October, 1949.
    Sir E. Keeling: In view of the fact that the hon. Members who raised this matter in the House, and also the manufacturers of West African furniture,
    2030
    never learned of the change, as my hon. Friends knows, may I ask him whether, in future, he will try to make such changes known to those concerned?
    Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir. I hope to improve things.

    Home Workers' Schemes
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give consideration to introducing legislation to make home workers' schemes illegal unless licensed for the protection of the public.
    Mr. H. Strauss: We shall carefully consider whether legislation on this subject is desirable and practicable.
    Mr. Dodds: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement. Will he bear in mind that the fraud squad of Scotland Yard, when making inquiries into home workers' schemes, have been amazed to find hundreds of them in the country, and that to protect the very poor and the old it is essential that consideration should be given to this matter as soon as possible?
    Mr. Strauss: I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that the criminal law is not without its resources at present.

    Coronation Accommodation Committee
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade to give details of the composition of the Coronation Accommodation Committee; how its members were selected, and their qualifications for the work; and how far the general consumer interest is represented thereon.
    Mr. Mackeson: The Coronation Accommodation Committee has ten members, of which five were appointed by the British Travel and Holidays Association and five by the British Hotels and Restaurants Association. The special concern of the British Travel and Holidays Association is, of course, the welfare of visitors, while the members appointed by the British Hotels and Restaurants Association represent the hotel industry.
    I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the members of the

    2031
    Committee, from which it will be seen that they are well qualified to deal with the various problems which will arise in connection with the accommodation of visitors to the Coronation.
    Miss Burton: Am I right in assuming from the hon. Gentleman's answer that there is not a member of the general public, as such, on this Committee? Has he seen a statement yesterday by the head of this Committee to the effect that the Coronation Accommodation Committee is not responsible for the accommodation provided by the hotels for viewing the procession? Does the Minister agree with that statement, and, if so, will he ask the Committee to accept that responsibility?
    Mr. Mackeson: I should like to see the statement; I have not yet seen it.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the B.H.R.A. have their representatives, why are there no representatives from the trade unions, particularly from the appropriate industrial councils, on this Committee? Will he see that a representative of the T.U.C. is appointed to this Committee?
    Mr. Mackeson: I think that this is a matter affecting the actual accommodation. We want a practical small working committee for which the Hotel Association provides free accommodation. The other Association to which I have referred has representatives of the whole of industry on it.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister appreciate that unless the workers are represented by their trade unions, he has not complete representation of those really concerned? May I ask him again to consider having a trade union representative from the T.U.C. on this Committee?
    Mr. Mackeson: I am quite prepared to consider that suggestion, but these are not industrial negotiations.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Minister say why the British Travel and Holidays Association, on which the trade unions and the Co-operative Society are already sitting as members, was not entrusted with this duty, particularly in view of the very efficient way in which it carried out the organisation in the case of the Festival of Britain?
    Mr. Mackeson: It is necessary to get the co-operation of the hotels in this matter. The Clerk of the London County Council and the Director of the Wholesale Co-operative Society are on this Committee. If we start increasing the number, it will be a very big Committee. It has a lot of work to do, and it may have to be done fairly quickly.
    Mr. Bottomley: The hotel industry is represented on the B.T.H.A., and that body has already done one job extremely well and should be able to do another.
    Following is the list:
    CORONATION ACCOMMODATION COMMITTEE
    Chairman: Mr. Hugh Wontner, Chairman and Managing Director of the Savoy, director of the Berkeley Hotel and (New) Claridges.
    Members appointed by the British Hotels and Restaurants Association
    Mr. D. G. Russell, Chairman of the Executive Committee of B.H.R.A. (ex officio).
    Mr. B. R. Franks, Managing Director of the Hyde Park Hotel.
    Mr. C. R. Hinds Howell, Director of Kensington Close.
    Mr. W. E. Lawless, Proprietor of the Ormonde Hotel.
    Members appointed by the British Travel and Holidays Association
    Sir Alexander Maxwell, Chairman of B.T.H.A. (ex officio).
    Mr. E. L. Taylor, Deputy Chairman of B.T.H.A. and director of many companies.
    Mr. Norman Wood, Director of the Co-operative Wholesale Society.
    Sir Howard Roberts, Clerk to the Council of the L.C.C.
    Mr. S. Plowden Roberts, Managing Director, Cox and Kings (Agents).

    Merchandise Marks Act (Contraventions)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds his department has, so far, refused to disclose to the Retail Trading Standards Association the name of the manufacturer of rayon-wool knitwear whose Utility code number was BHJ, some of whose jumpers and cardigans have recently been seen bearing the label Jay Jay Pure Scotch Wool, thereby contravening the Merchandise Marks Act.
    Mr. H. Strauss: It is not the practice of the Board to disclose information obtained under the Defence Regulations. My right hon. Friend has asked for

    2033
    advice on whether the special circumstances of this case can justify an exception.
    Miss Burton: Surely the Board is responsible for safeguarding the consumer. Is the Minister aware that this information was asked for on 21st October, and would he not agree that the R.T.S.A. is responsible, as a trade association, for making investigations? How can they do that without information from the Board? Does he realise that if this case is taken to court, the Board of Trade will be an accessory after the fact for withholding information?
    Mr. Strauss: I do not think that the hon. Lady will expect me to agree with her on the law. My original answer was not intended to be discouraging. Until my right hon. Friend has received the advice for which he has asked, I should prefer not to add to my answer.
    Mr. Stokes: Quite apart from the law, in pursuit of general knowledge, and with respect to my hon. Friend, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what is Jay Jay Pure Scotch Wool?
    Mr. Strauss: I think that if I went into the answer to all that, it would unnecessarily delay the answers to other Questions.
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases during the past 12 months his Department has undertaken the prosecution of offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts; and with what result.
    Mr. H. Strauss: None, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds: Why not? With the dropping of the Utility scheme the public did not have the protection which it had before. Was not a regulation introduced in 1913 to enable the Board of Trade to prosecute on behalf of the public, and, in some cases for the protection of the consumer? What has the Board of Trade been doing during the last 12 months?
    Mr. Strauss: The fact that the Board of Trade has not prosecuted does not mean that prosecutions have not taken place. Whether the Board of Trade should prosecute or not depends on the Act of 1891. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to that Act, he will see the conditions which make it proper for the
    2034
    Board of Trade to prosecute, and those conditions have not arisen in this particular period.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that his own party introduced a Regulation in 1913 which gives the Board of Trade power to prosecute?

    War Damage (Claims)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the President of the Board of Trade what sum is outstanding to claimants under the War Damage Act, 1943; and how much interest has accrued under Part II on this sum to date.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to claims outstanding under Part II of the War Damage Act. The amount of such claims outstanding is now approximately £27½ million. The accrued interest on this sum is approximately £8 million.
    Brigadier Clarke: Will my hon. Friend use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to liquidate this debt before the interest catches up with the principal?
    Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman also use his influence with the Foreign Secretary to see that Herr Krupp is not paid out before our own people are paid out?

    Nylon Fibre
    Mr. Rhodesasked the President of the Board of Trade when he estimates the rate of production of continuous filament and staple nylon will reach 30,000,000 pounds weight per annum.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I am informed that the expansion in manufacturing capacity, designed to provide an output of about 30 million lb. weight of nylon per annum, should come into operation during the latter half of 1954.

    Motor Industry (Foreign Competition)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difficulties confronting British exporters, particularly in the motor industry, as a result of export subsidies, overt and concealed, offered to foreign competitors by their national governments; and what protests he has made against these unfair practices.
    Mr. Mackeson: I am aware that certain export incentive schemes introduced by foreign Governments may be among the factors contributing to the increased competition which the motor vehicle and other industries are meeting in overseas markets. Her Majesty's Government are opposed to the use of export subsidies, overt or concealed, and in all inter-Governmental discussion of this subject it will remain their constant endeavour to secure that the freedom of Governments to use such subsidies is strictly limited.
    Mr. Edelman: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the serious decline in motor exports due partly to German competition which has been aided by export bonuses and taxation remissions? In particular, has he seen the resolution of the International Monetary Conference protesting against these measures, and will he say what support Her Majesty's Government have given to the protest by the Conference?
    Mr. Mackeson: Our representative gave the very strongest support. I have seen the resolution, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government regard this as a serious matter. I should also like to say that I know that neither industry nor hon. Members would wish us to take any action which might encourage a mad subsidy race in the world.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difficulties confronting British exporters, particularly in the motor industry, as a result of the more favourable credit facilities offered by their foreign competitors; and whether he will request the Export Credits Guarantee Department to adopt a more liberal policy in order to deal with such competition on a basis of equality.
    Mr. Mackeson: The Export Credits Guarantee Department is not responsible for determining, for exchange control purposes, what credit facilities British exporters may offer. That is a matter for the Treasury acting on the advice of the Foreign Exchange Control Committee.
    As my right hon. Friend said on 5th November, during the debate on the Address, applications to offer extended
    2036
    credit terms are being dealt with sympathetically and Her Majesty's Government is fully aware of the importance of maintaining the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufactures in overseas markets.
    I am not aware that, within the limits approved by the Treasury, E.C.G.D. in any way restrict the terms of payment on transactions covered by their guarantee. If the hon. Member has evidence of any such cases I shall be pleased to look into them. The hon. Member will, of course, realise that the cover E.C.G.D. can provide must be related to the capacity of overseas buyers to meet their obligations.
    Mr. Edelman: To illustrate my Question, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties being experienced by exporters of commercial vehicles in competition with foreign sellers of comparable vehicles, in that they find that the customers who have to write off the value of the vehicles require long-term credits, and that, in certain cases, particularly in South America, customers are receiving five- and 10-year credits which are not available for British products?
    Mr. Mackeson: I am aware of that. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that in the case of the South American countries we have gone very wide, and the time will come when the House will have to face a Supplementary Estimate in connection with these credits.

    Waste Paper (Utilisation)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he is satisfied with the level of utilisation of waste paper by mills in this country; and what steps, administrative and scientific, are being taken to raise the level.
    Mr. Mackeson: The present lower level of utilisation of waste paper arises mainly from the fall in demand for the articles in which it is used as a raw material, but my noble Friend would always welcome any suitable means of increasing its utilisation. It is already used by paper and board mills in making a wide range of products. In particular, packaging boards and the cheaper wrapping papers are made almost wholly of

    2037
    waste paper, while newsprint also contains some. The use of too high a proportion would impair the quality of the finished product which has frequently to compete with the foreign manufactures in both the home and export markets. Methods of increasing its use are more a matter for scientific and technical study than for administrative action.
    My noble Friend is, therefore, in touch with the British Paper and Board Makers' Association as to possible ways of increasing the use of waste paper and some of the technical problems involved are now being studied by the British Paper and Board Industry Research Association.
    Mr. Shepherd: While thanking my hon. Friend for his very complete answer, may I ask him if he is aware that the percentage of waste now used in the manufacture of newsprint is very much smaller than that used during the war? Is there a possibility of increasing it? Also, is it not regrettable that we have no bleaching process for newsprint, as is used in the United States of America?
    Mr. Mackeson: As to the second part of the supplementary question, that is one of the technical points involved. As to the quality of our newsprint, it is very much a matter of opinion whether we want to go back to the war-time standard.

    Electricity Poles (Price)
    Commander Maitlandasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he is aware that the price of a 30 ft. medium pole suitable for electricity supply has risen in price from £6 5s. in July, 1951, to £10 6s. delivered on the site at the present time; and, as this rise in cost is prejudicing the extension of electricity supplies in country districts, what steps he is taking to get this price lowered.
    Mr. Mackeson: My noble Friend does not control the price of poles. Owing to the time required for selection and treatment the price of poles going into consumption is related to that paid for softwood about a year before. The increase to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers reflects that which took place in the price of timber during 1951. A fall in the price of poles can be expected in due course corresponding to the reduction in timber prices in 1952.
    Commander Maitland: Does my hon. Friend realise that the specifications and standards laid down are so high and so difficult to meet that they completely exclude the use of British timber for this particular purpose? Will he not set up a committee to examine the whole of this question to see whether it would not be possible to use British timber for this purpose and facilitate and improve the situation very considerably?
    Mr. Mackeson: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that.

    Home-Grown Flax
    Sir E. Keelingasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the estimated value of the flax grown in this country in the present year; and why 100 persons are employed in the directorate of home-grown flax at a cost of £53,097.
    Mr. Mackeson: In the current year the Government's Flax Production Scheme is expected to produce flax fibre, by-products and flax seed to the value of £833,000.
    Since 1st October, 1951, the staff of the Directorate of Home-Grown Flax has been reduced by 16 to 86, and the cost of it has been reduced accordingly. The Directorate is responsible for the growing of flax and the processing of it in 10 Government-owned mills. Three of these are operated by the Directorate itself, and their supervisory and clerical staff at present numbering 38 are included in the staff of the Directorate.
    The examination to which I referred in my answer of 1st August to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Well-wood) is expected to result in a further reduction of the number of staff employed in the Directorate.
    Mr. Hurd: Can my hon. Friend say when he hopes to be able to hand over the flax industry entirely to commercial enterprise without any Government directorate?
    Mr. Mackeson: It has been decided to continue the present plan owing to the dependence of the Ulster industry on the present scheme.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the obscurity of the reply, can the hon. Gentleman say

    2039
    whether, in this context, the reduction means that it will be proportionate to the amount mentioned or not?
    Mr. Mackeson: There have been some reductions and we anticipate another small reduction.

    Newspaper Contents Bills
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how much paper is saved by the ban on the display of printed contents bills by newspaper vendors.
    Mr. Mackeson: There are no figures available which would enable a precise estimate to be made of the tonnage of paper saved in this way, but we have always been advised by the Newsprint Rationing Committee that it is substantial.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Pawnbrokers
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new licences enabling persons to operate as pawnbrokers have been granted since October, 1951.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1949, the power to levy duties and issue licences under the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872, was transferred to county and county borough councils and town councils in Scotland. I regret, therefore, that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available without undue administrative expense.

    Monthly Digest of Statistics (Pre-War Figures)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have inserted in all the tables contained in the Monthly Digest of Statistics the relative figures for at least one year prior to 1940.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The general practice is to include information for at least one pre-war year if comparable pre-war figures are available. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I shall be pleased to give it consideration.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a number of tables comparable
    2040
    pre-war figures are given, and that the facts given about today's activities are not nearly so useful without pre-war figures with which to compare them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will draw my attention to the particular cases he has in mind I will gladly look into them.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of defence expenditure in the first six months of the financial year 1952–53.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For reasons which my right hon. Friend has explained before, I cannot give a figure for part of the year which would not tend to be seriously misleading.
    Mr. Swingler: If the Treasury does not know how much money is being spent in this way, how was it possible for his right hon. Friend to say, in a recent debate, that the re-armament programme was being fully maintained?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept the premise of the first part of that supplementary, and the second part is quite another matter.

    Foreign Exchange Earnings
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of foreign exchange earnings accruing to the United Kingdom as a result of the setting up of the Foreign Exchange Market in December, 1951.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): We have no means of ascertaining the amount of such earnings.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the purchasing value of the £ sterling has varied since October, 1951.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Taking the figure for October, 1951, as 20s. the corresponding figure for October, 1952, was 18s. 9d. This answer is based on the Interim Index of Retail Prices of the Ministry of Labour.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not this substantial cut in the value of the £ all the more vicious as it is the deliberately intended result of Government policy? Is not the Government in the light of their pledges, which are too well known and too numerous to mention, guilty of a cynical approach to this for which they ought to be ashamed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It may reassure the hon. and gallant Gentleman to compare the period for the year ending October, 1951, when the increase, calculated on the same basis, was 2s. 2d., or almost double.

    National Land Fund (Interest Rate)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the average rate of interest currently accruing to the National Land Fund; and what proportion of the fund is invested in Ways and Means advances.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The average rate of interest is 2.28 per cent.; the proportion of the Fund invested in Ways and Means advances is 18 per cent.
    Mr. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider investigating this fund, not a penny of the capital of which has been expended since it was formed five years ago, in long-term dated stock, so that at least we shall get the maximum interest which is payable?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While not accepting the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can assure him that we seek to obtain the maximum interest payable compatible with the type of security required and the commitments of the fund.

    Post-War Credits (Disabled Ex-Service Men)
    Mr. F. Macleanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider repaying post-war credits to seriously disabled ex-Service men in advance of the usual age.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) on 14th November.

  ATOM AND HYDROGEN BOMBS (INFORMATION)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the new President of the United States of America the possibility of exchanging information about the explosion of the British atomic bomb at Monte Bello for information of the results of the tests of the explosion of a hydrogen bomb by the United States Atomic Energy Commission at Eniwetok Atoll.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing matters of this kind with the United States Government after the new President has taken office.
  Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister read the statement of an eminent British scientist, that the hydrogen bomb is 50 times more powerful than other atom bombs, and, if so, is it not essential that the whole matter should be discussed and a ban placed upon the bomb in the interests of civilisation?
  The Prime Minister: I have heard all sort of estimates of the increased power of the hydrogen bomb over the existing atom bomb. They vary from the 50 mentioned by the hon. Member to 1,000 times. This carries the anxious forebodings of the hon. Gentleman to an even deeper level. I in no way dissociate myself from his anxiety as to the future of the human race.
  Mr. Hughes: Is that not all the more reason why greater initiative should be taken in international discussions?
  The Prime Minister: I thought the answer I gave to the Question was one which did full justice to the matter.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As we all share the horror which the Prime Minister has expressed at the constantly increasing power of these weapons, will he renew the assurance that we are ready to accept at once a plan for their total abolition adopted by the Assembly of the United Nations, or any other effective plan, and will he lay in the Library the text of the speech made in New York by the Foreign Secretary on the work of the Disarmament Commission?
  The Prime Minister: The first part of that question raises very large issues. In regard to the second part, I should like to have notice.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Surely we can be told whether we stand by the scheme for abolition which the Western Powers and the Assembly adopted.
  The Prime Minister: We stand by all the broad decisions which have been taken by the United Nations to which we have given our accord.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. May I first say that at the end of business today we shall ask the House to consider the Report stage of the Transport [Money] Resolution, and that tomorrow it is not proposed to take the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Bill. We shall start with the Third Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill, which is an urgent Measure, and proceed with the other Orders as already announced.
Next week's business will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER—We find it necessary to ask the House to consider a Time-table Motion for the Committee and remaining stages of the Transport Bill. It is proposed that the details of the Time-table should be arranged by the Business Committee in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 41. The terms of the Government's Motion will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow morning. We shall also proceed with any business not obtained on Friday of this week.
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, 25TH AND 26TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading:
Iron and Steel Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Conclusion of the debate on the Motions for Addresses relating to the continuation of Emergency Powers, which is the subject for today, of course.
2044
Remaining stages:
Civil Contingencies Fund Bill.
Committee and remaining stages:
New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Bill.
Any other business.
Motion to set up Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
FRIDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Opposition will offer strenuous opposition—I cannot think of another word—to the Motion for the Time-table on the Transport Bill. It is very unusual to introduce a Guillotine Motion of this kind before even setting up and starting with the Committee. It may be a recognition that this is an extraordinary bad Bill and that Ministers cannot explain it. How much time is it proposed to devote to the Committee stage of the Bill?
Mr. Crookshank: I have just said that the terms of the Motion will be on the Paper tomorrow morning and they will then be available.
Mr. Attlee: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us now?
Mr. H. Morrison: If the proposed Allocation of Time Order is to be on the Paper tomorrow, presumably the right hon. Gentleman knows what it contains. What is he doing? Is he trying to treat the House with the utmost discourtesy and lack of consideration? We have heard the point to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know the answer by now, and if so, surely he can tell the House what my right hon. Friend has asked.
Mr. Crookshank: The actual allocation of time within the Time-table is a matter for the Business Committee. The only question which I am now asked is the total number of days for the Committee stage. I was not ready to give a final decision at the moment. I have certain intentions, but I was wondering whether it would be possible to extend the time which I have in mind. That was all.
Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable difficulty arose on the Licensing in New Towns Bill on some of the special issues which concern Scotland? In regard to the Transport Bill, there are some very special considerations affecting Scotland and I hope that in an Allocation of Time Order of this kind sufficient time will be allowed for discussion of these problems.
Mr. Crookshank: All these things can be discussed on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that we are proceeding according to the Standing Order which lays down that it is the Business Committee which will settle the arrangements. No doubt what he has said will be borne in mind by those who sit for his party on that committee.
Mr. P. Morris: Will the Leader of the House reply to the original question put by the Leader of the Opposition and explain this indecent haste to guillotine a Measure the implementation of which will affect the livelihood of a million people? Why this indecent haste?
Mr. Crookshank: I should have thought that what has been going on in this House during the last week was a sufficient answer.
Mr. Paget: Was the Leader of the House in the House when the Minister of Transport promised adequate discussion? Is there any precedent whatever in the history of this House for the introduction of a Guillotine Motion before a Bill has even gone to Committee?
Mr. Crookshank: I certainly was there. It is our hope that there will be adequate time for discussion of the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. As for the other matters, we had better discuss those on Monday when we debate the Motion.
Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Has it ever been done before?
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I want to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which affects neither the Government nor the Opposition as such as parties in this House; but as it affects the procedure of the House, it is a matter obviously upon which we require your guidance. The Leader of the House has
2046
just said, in reply to a supplementary question, that having regard to what happened in the House this week he had decided to take a certain course of action. If he means by that that there is an objection to democratic debate in this House, may I ask whether it is not the fact that all that happened this week in the debate on the Transport Bill was—so far as I am aware—within the Rules of the House and there has been no transgression of the rules of procedure? Surely the right hon. Gentleman had no right to make that statement?
Mr. Speaker: I was not conscious of any breach of the rules of debate or of the House, or I should have done my best to check it. I was rising to say that these matters as to the desirability or not of introducing a Time-table Motion are not for me. They will no doubt be discussed at length on Monday. They are a matter for the House and not for me.
Mr. Mellish: You have the honour to occupy the Chair, Mr. Speaker, in what is regarded as the greatest democratic assembly in the world. Surely some influence could come from the Chair to stop a measure of this kind, which is more like Soviet Russia or Franco Spain.
Mr. Speaker: Again I must rule that this is a matter for the House and, not for me.
Mr. Shinwell: Have I your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House what he meant by saying that, having regard to what had happened this week, he must take appropriate action?
Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here during the debate on the Transport Bill, when we were promised the utmost opposition at every stage of the proceedings.
Mr. H. Morrison: Is not that a very shocking observation? It is quite frequent that an Opposition, whether Conservative or Labour, indicates that it will engage in vigorous and sustained opposition to particular Bills. It is a Parliamentary right. It is what this House is for. Are we to understand, merely because we indicated something which has been indicated many times, that the right hon. Gentleman immediately retaliates by putting down an

2047
Allocation of Time Order? May I ask him to recall, for reference in the future, that when he made this announcement it was received with gleeful smiles and cheers by his supporters?
Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman also will recollect that when his own Transport Bill was under discussion, it was not taken on the Floor of the House but was taken in Committee upstairs.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of the procedure of the House for a Minister of the Crown to say that he proposes to introduce a Guillotine Motion, not because of the necessities of the Bill or the urgency of the matter, but as a penalty upon the Opposition for exercising their Parliamentary right?
Mr. Speaker: I count myself fortunate that I am not responsible for Ministerial or other utterances in the House. It is a matter for the House itself to decide. There is nothing out of order in what the Minister is proposing to do. What I think is undesirable is that when we are to have a debate on this matter on Monday, when there will be a Question on the subject before the House, which the House must resolve, we should take up time at Question time today on the subject.
Mr. Ellis Smith: You were good enough to advise us, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the Time-table is a matter for the House. If we allow this to pass today, it will mean that during the weekend it will be accepted. Therefore, and in view of the fact that there are no precedents for this, I ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a matter of supreme public importance.
I accept that under the Standing Orders I have not the right to debate this, but for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, these are my principal points for asking you seriously and sympathetically to consider that this is a matter of urgent public importance. First, from my own knowledge there is no precedent for this, especially on a matter of great controversy which is now raging throughout the country. Second, in view of the feeling in the country and the effect upon
2048
people's lives, this should not be rushed through in this way. My third point is that this House is looked upon throughout the world as the world's most democratic institution, and therefore it is our duty to safeguard it. In view of these points, I ask you to consider that this is a matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Speaker: The democratic character of this Assembly is maintained by adherence to its rules of order, and it would be quite wrong for me to accept any motion for the Adjournment of the House on a subject which is to be debated on Monday. I ask the House to cogitate on what has been said and to come prepared on Monday to discuss this subject, when it will be done in the ordinary course of the business of the House.
Mr. L. M. Lever: Has the Leader of the House read today's leader in the "Manchester Guardian" about the lack of comprehension by the Government of the Transport Bill and its serious implications, affecting not only the workers, but the future conduct of the industry?
Mr. Stokes: May I change gear, so to speak, on a matter of gastronomic importance and ask the Leader of the House whether he has read the Motion which appears on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) and myself, and whether he realises the importance of providing time to debate this Motion?
[That in the opinion of this House the Kitchen Committee have failed to make proper or adequate arrangements for the provision of tolerable food or drink, at reasonable prices, at any hour of the day or night; and should be dismissed from the service of the House.]
Mr. Crookshank: Of course, I saw that Motion on the Paper, but I do not see that there is much likelihood of finding any Government time. Government business has got to be got through first, but if there is any general demand for that Motion to be taken some evening, perhaps this could be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Stokes: If the usual channels happen to be unsympathetic, what is the starving back bencher to do about it? The Prime Minister, for instance, and

2049
others of us do not suffer from gastronomic starvation, nor does the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, but the Leader of the House will be aware of the inconvenience that was caused to hon. Members on Monday, and we do not want that to happen again. Surely the Leader of the House realises that this is not a question of conversation through the usual channels but a matter concerning every back bencher.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the appearance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) does not justify a discussion of the Motion?
Mr. Boothby: This matter has nothing at all to do with appearances. The Motion is couched in rather strong terms, and in view of the fact that the Kitchen Committee are bound to feel a little uncomfortable until it has been discussed, does not the Leader of the House think that some discussion, even if fairly brief, should take place in the near future so long as the Motion remains on the Order Paper?
Mrs. Castle: On the Allocation of Time Order—
Mr. Crookshank: As it is obvious that the hon. Lady is asking about something else, perhaps I may reply first to the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Of course, if there is a general demand for a debate, we shall be very glad to consider it, but we must have—
Mr. S. Silverman: On Monday and Tuesday.
Mr. Crookshank: Monday at 10 o'clock, perhaps, if that is what is desired.
Mr. Stokes: The Kitchen Committee should know first.
Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is not such a hurry, after all. We should be quite ready to give facilities one evening, but not in Government time. If the right hon. Gentleman finds any difficulty, perhaps he will discuss the matter with me.
Mrs. Castle: In view of the outrageous justification given by the Leader of the House for the introduction of an
2050
Allocation of Time Order, may I ask whether he is aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) told him during the Second Reading debate that there would be plenty of constructive Amendments coming from that side of the House and that the hon. Baronet said to the Minister of Transport that he could not conceive the need for this violent hurry. Therefore, will not the proposed Order not merely muzzle Members on this side, but also Members on the opposite side who are honest enough to state their views?
Mr. Speaker: We are still at Question time. The hon. Lady's argument would appear more suitable to be advanced on Monday, when a Question will be before the House. At present we are merely being told the business for next week. This is not the time to discuss the merits of next week's business; otherwise this time would stretch out far too long.
Mr. Norman Smith: Is the Leader of the House aware that his methods of handling business will greatly strengthen the hands of those outside the House who want to use industrial action for political purposes?
Mr. Speaker: These are matters which can be brought up on Monday.
Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have order. Any hon. Member whom I call may ask a question about business by all means, but I ask him not to try to anticipate Monday's debate. That would be quite out of order.
Mr. M. Stewart: I hope to observe your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the House on a remark which he himself made arising out of business, and I trust that it will be in order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House put forward the principle that if a Government is told that it must expect wholehearted opposition to a Bill, it is entitled to put down a Guillotine Motion of the kind he has described as coming before us next week. Does he lay that down as a general principle in all circumstances? If so, we should like to have it clear for future use and reference.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We ought to proceed with the business now.
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Could it be recorded that the Liberal Party have made no effort to intervene in this debate?
Mr. C. Davies: Would it be in order for me to intervene, Mr. Speaker, after you have given your Ruling?
Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must get on now. Sir Thomas Dugdale.
Dr. King: On a point of order. In view of the fact that most of the questions about next week's business have taken the form which they have taken, it has not been possible for hon. Members to raise other miscellaneous questions on next week's business which they would like to raise. Will you give that opportunity?
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to ask a question about next week's business?
Dr. King: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: And does not wish to argue the Guillotine Motion?
Dr. King: No, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Very well. Dr. King.
Dr. King: Since it is still necessary to convince both the Government and the country of the necessity to give greater aid to the blitzed towns of this country and of the inadequacy of the measures proposed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, will the Leader of the House find an opportunity at some time in the very near future to discuss the Motion which appears on the Order Paper about blitzed towns in the names of several hon. Members and myself?
[That this House welcomes the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he proposes to authorise some new reconstruction work in the bombed cities for the year 1953, but maintains its opinion that the amount
2052
of work which he proposes to allow, namely £2,500,000 worth, is inadequate to meet the crying needs of these cities for a reasonable advance towards their rebuilding.]
Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid that I do not see any early prospect of that.
Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. Reverting to the Allocation of Time Order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your guidance, having regard to the serious situation which is arising out of this decision and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is in his place and that we know the importance which he attaches to democratic forms of Government. May I ask you to invite the Prime Minister to make a statement on how he stands, whether he is aware of these arrangements, and what his views are about them?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for Monday.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: This is quite out of order.
Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order. I ask for your guidance and assistance in the matter, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to invite the Prime Minister to make that statement.
Mr. Speaker: No. I should myself then be guilty of a breach of order.
Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no point of order involved in it.
Mr. Williams: I wish to make a further submission, Mr. Speaker. Instead of inviting the Prime Minister, would you be good enough to allow him to do so if he so desires?
Mr. Speaker: I certainly will not. Otherwise I should be in breach of my own Ruling, which I do not desire to be.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Icelandic fisheries dispute.
As hon. Members will recall, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated on 12th November, in reply to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that, with the aim of reaching a solution of the fishery dispute with Iceland, it had been arranged that Icelandic experts should come to London to explain to representatives of the British trawler owners and skippers the scientific grounds on which their Government's new fishery limits had been based.
These explanations were given at a meeting on Monday last, but the representatives of the British fishing interests have expressed themselves as not being satisfied with them. At the same time they have stated publicly that they are open at any time to discuss with Iceland representatives measures of conservation required for the proper protection of the Icelandic fishery grounds.
In order not to prejudice a successful outcome of these talks such as had been hoped for, the Icelandic Government arranged for the diversion elsewhere of a trawler which was approaching Grimsby: but the Icelandic Government made it clear that their trawler owners would not be prepared to take any further step of this nature.
The talks having been unsuccessful, an Icelandic trawler, the "Jon Forseti," entered Grimsby yesterday and proceeded with the landing and sale of her catch. Thereupon, the Grimsby Trawler Officers' Guild gave immediate effect to their previously announced decision that Grimsby distant water trawlers would cease to sail from the port if and when an Icelandic trawler landed fish there.
Her Majesty's Government have maintained close contact with the Icelandic Government throughout, and much regret that their efforts to bring about a satisfactory settlement have not met with
2054
success. The Trawler Officers' Guild are acting within their legal rights in taking the action they have done, and Her Majesty's Government therefore cannot dictate to them in this matter; but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Food, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and myself are watching the situation closely and will naturally take whatever opportunity may arise to assist in bringing about a settlement.
Mr. G. Brown: This is a very difficult situation and no one will wish to make it worse. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, will he make it clear, in order to help to get the atmosphere right, whether the situation is as I understand it—that, in fact, the Iceland Government are not allowing the trawling by their own people of the areas closed to our trawlers; and that that seems to indicate that the areas are closed for scientific reasons? I ask him to make that perfectly clear so that everybody knows it.
Secondly, despite the difficulties, does he not think that the last part of his statement, in which he talks rather vaguely about a number of his colleagues and himself watching the situation closely, hardly attributes sufficient importance to this matter in the view of the ports which are affected, the housewives and consumers generally? While this dispute goes on, it will be a very serious business indeed.
Does he not agree that Her Majesty's Government cannot altogether get out of responsibility for this matter, however awkward and unpleasant it may be? Will he not say that the Government intend to accept their part of the responsibility to seek a settlement with the Icelandic Government, at which level the problem really exists and not at the level of the Trawler Officers' Guild at all?
Sir T. Dugdale: I can give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman. In answering the first part of his question, we are informed that the Icelandic trawlers are being excluded from these grounds. I cannot go further than that, but we have that assurance. On the second question, the Government certainly realise their responsibility in this matter and are in continual touch with the Icelandic Government on the whole

2055
question, but so far we have not been able to do anything further than that which we have already achieved.
Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that unless the Icelandic Government realise the necessity for reciprocal action, the Scottish fishermen are likely to exercise a great deal of pressure arising out of their discontent because of their view that their fisheries are not having the protection of the Icelandic fisheries accorded to them, and that many parts round the north coast of Scotland are being invaded continually by trawlers and their fishing destroyed? The fishermen feel very strongly about it and about the Icelandic Government having taken this one-sided action.
Sir T. Dugdale: I am aware of that. I am certain that this dispute could be settled if we could get negotiations.
Mr. Law: Is it not the case that at those conversations earlier this week the Icelandic Government, although they advanced the general case for conservation, failed entirely to convince either the trawler owners or officers that their case was based on questions of conservation alone?
Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I understand that to be the position.
Mr. Law: Might I ask one further question? The Minister referred to the proposals that had been advanced by the trawler owners on the British side. Would it be a fair picture of those proposals to describe them in these terms? Did the British side say that they would be prepared to see the nursery fishing grounds closed to vessels of all countries, and that pending a general settlement they would ask for the three-mile limit to be observed until the matter had been referred to the permanent commission shortly to be set up under the Over-Fishing Convention. Was that proposal put?
Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I think that is a very clear statement of the view taken by the British fishery people. I should not like to mislead the House: the Over-Fishing Convention is not yet in existence, although we hope it will be in the early part of next year.
Mr. Younger: Does the Minister appreciate that since this quarrel arose out of an action by the Icelandic Government, it essentially depends upon pressure being brought on a foreign Government? Would the Minister agree that that is a job for his colleagues in the Government, whereas industrial action such as has been taken and looks likely to be taken in future really brings far greater pressure both on the British housewife and also on the other interests in the fishing industry which are already seriously affected, much more seriously so in Grimsby than in the constituency for which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law) has been speaking?
Sir T. Dugdale: I should like to say one word about the housewife. So far as she and the general body of consumers are concerned, we have about three weeks' time lag before any action that is being taken at Grimsby will become effective. We hope very much indeed that during those three weeks something will emerge by which agreement can be reached.
Mr. Boothby: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this trouble might never have arisen but for the intolerable delay in setting up the Over-Fishing Convention, and would he take the initiative, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, in seeing that this Convention is summoned as soon as possible—he said some time next year? Until that Convention is sitting, and considers the very grave problem of over-fishing in the North Sea, we shall never get a settlement of this and many other North Sea problems.
Sir T. Dugdale: I entirely agree, but my hon. Friend will realise that Her Majesty's Government are not entirely responsible for this. We have been pre-sing for the setting up of this Convention, as did our predecessors, for a long time now. We are now within a close distance of the Convention being set up. There is one country at present outstanding.
Mrs. Braddock: There are a number of opinions in regard to this matter, and one of the opinions throughout the country is that this action is being deliberately taken by the trawler owners in order to keep as high as possible the price of fish in this country. In view of that fact and a number of other matters

2057
that are involved, will the Minister consult the Minister of Labour and ask him to keep his eye on the matter in order that, if the trawler owners refuse to do the things that will bring the fish to the housewives of this country, similar action to that which was taken by a Minister of Labour in the last Government—the prosecution of dockers for restrictive practices—will be taken in exactly the same situation against the trawler owners of Grimsby and Hull?
Sir T. Dugdale: As I understand the position, that is not at all the intention of the British Trawler Owners' Federation, because these restrictions on fishing at the present time are also restricting very much the larger quantities of British fish landed from Icelandic waters.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend say which country has not yet ratified the Over-Fishing Convention and what prospects there are of that country ratifying it in the near future? Will he also say whether the Foreign Secretary has approached the Icelandic Government with a view to suggesting that they should wait until this Convention comes into force and lift their ban before they enter into discussions?
Sir T. Dugdale: The country which has not ratified is Spain, but we are hopeful that they will do so at a very early date next year. The other point is very much in the mind of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Captain Hewitson: In view of the fact that there is a possibility of a widespread refusal of the trawler skippers in two of the major ports—Grimsby and Hull—to go to sea, would the Government consider the possibility of banning Icelandic landings until such time as they have found a solution to this problem?
Sir T. Dugdale: All these points will be borne in mind, but I do not think that the Government have any power to take action of that sort.
Mr. G. Brown: Does the Minister not intend to say something rather more directly about that? He said that a ban on Icelandic landings will be borne in mind. He then said that he does not think that the Government have the power. Does that mean that if he had the power to do so, he would do it? Nothing
2058
has so far been said in these exchanges about what the Minister proposes to do to end the strike and get the landing of fish resumed, and to come to some general agreement. It would be silly to think that if we got Spain to ratify the Convention, this problem would disappear. It would not, it would still be there. The Minister has said nothing about what he proposes to do about that. His last sentence gives me a good deal of qualms. Is he thinking of a ban on Icelandic fishing if he had the power? Is that his answer?
Sir T. Dugdale: No. I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to have that impression. I am quite certain that this dispute could be settled if we could get discussions opened. The difficulty up to now has been that neither the Foreign Office nor ourselves have been able to bring about a general discussion on these matters between the fishermen of the two countries.
Air Commodore Harvey: Would my right hon. Friend refute the suggestion that the action taken in Grimsby has been by the trawler owners? It has been by the skippers and mates of the vessels. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the crews have the impression that the Icelandic fishery protection vessels close an eye when they see their own boats fishing inshore but chase the British ones out to sea? Is he further aware that the only people who will benefit by this strike are the Icelandic trawler owners and crews, who will make a packet of money? Will my right hon. Friend do something to stop them doing so?
Sir T. Dugdale: These are the kind of points which are causing so much disturbance and anxiety among the fishermen. I repeat that I am certain that if we can get discussions opened we can get all these points resolved. I cannot say that there is substance in the point which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has made, but that again is something which has been thought by fishermen in different parts of the country.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that shortly after the Icelandic decision now complained of, I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would engage in Governmental talks with the Icelandic Government

2059
with a view to preventing the kind of impasse which has arisen? How is it that those talks did not fructuate? What has been done about the matter and how is it that the Government have allowed the present situation to develop?
Sir T. Dugdale: The short answer to that is that the Icelandic Government would not go far enough in these talks to make them reasonable to provide a representative exchange of views between the two sides.
Mr. G. R. Howard: In view of the unfortunate situation which has been caused by this dispute, would my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that our territorial waters will be respected, and that if any foreign nations try to fish within our limits, rigorous action will be taken against them?
Sir T. Dugdale: We have had no evidence of anything of that kind.
Mr. Lewis: In view of the obvious importance of this matter and the grave situation that is and will be confronting the housewives of this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will immediately consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see whether we can have an immediate debate on this issue, and if possible try to arrange it for Monday next, before things go too far? I think this is a very serious matter, and as there is obvious concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House, will he look immediately into the prospect of having a debate?
Mr. Younger: In pursuance of what my hon. Friend has just said, and in view of the statements made by the Minister, I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"The failure of the Government to arrive at agreement with the Icelandic Government on the matter of fishing rights."
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"The failure of the Government to arrive at agreement with the Icelandic Government on the matter of fishing rights."
I am afraid that does not come within the Standing Order, for we know that it
2060
is a continuing matter which is by no means settled. On the other hand, Ministerial responsibility is lacking in it. It takes two to make an agreement, and the Government cannot necessarily be held responsible for failure to agree with another Government. Therefore, on those grounds, I must say that it does not come within the Standing Order.
Mr. Younger: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in this matter? I appreciate that it has to be an immediate matter and not a continuing matter. Of course, it is impossible to put down in the terms of the Motion all the arguments and I understood, indeed, that it was not permissible, even if it were desirable to do so. But I think that the discussion which has already taken place has made it clear that there is in fact the immediate issue of a strike which brings this to a head at this precise moment. The matter of which we are complaining is the inaction of the Government, but it is the strike which makes it urgent at this precise moment.
Mr. Speaker: I can see the argument for urgency and for public importance, though on the urgency of the question it is fair to bear in mind that the Minister said that it would be three weeks or more before this would take effect.
Sir T. Dugdale: Three weeks so far as the housewives are concerned. Trawlers are already out there. Naturally, they will be coming in every day, or every other day, with their landings of fish, and we shall not get into any difficulty about the supplying of fish until the middle of December.
Mr. Speaker: The grounds which I have already given are, I think, sufficient to dispose of this Motion under Standing Order No. 9. It does not come within the terms of the Standing Order.
Mr. G. Brown: May I submit, on that point, that while what the Minister said about the supply of fish may be true, at this very moment fishermen, trawler hands, officers and men who work at the docks are put out already over a dispute about which they can do nothing. All the Minister has to say about it is that he and his colleagues will watch it. There is no proposal to do anything about this. It is urgent, but nobody seems to be concerned about it. May I submit, with respect, that it is urgent and very important.
Mr. Speaker: I see those arguments, and I have balanced and considered them; but I am bound to say that the failure of one Government to get agreement with another may be the fault of the other Government and not of one's own. This is not really a matter of responsibility, unless one would adopt the doctrine, which would be absurd, that Ministers should always agree with foreign Governments.
Mr. Stokes: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, surely the Minister himself has made the case. He has explained that there is no immediate problem, because for the next two or three weeks the trawlers will continue to come in. That means that unless the trawlers continue to go out from now onwards, there will be a shortage in two or three weeks' time which cannot be caught up. Therefore, the matter becomes a matter of immediate importance. Unless it is dealt with now, in three weeks' time there will be a shortage.
Mr. Speaker: Before three weeks has elapsed, the matter can easily be discussed in another way—
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This Standing Order is intended to be used only when it is justifiable to interrupt ordinary business. I cannot see what there is in this matter which allows that to be done.
Mr. Stokes: On a point of explanation. May I put this to you, Mr. Speaker? You have ruled that it is not immediately important because there is plenty of time in the next two or three weeks to discuss it. With great respect, may I say that if we delay at all there will be a shortage in two or three weeks' time? The urgency is now. If three days elapse and nothing happens, in three weeks there will be a three-day shortage. Surely that is the argument?
Mr. Boothby: May I point out that there can be no great urgency of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, because nothing has happened to change the situation. Her Majesty's Government have been in negotiation with the Icelandic Government for weeks and they are still in negotiation endeavouring to get
2062
a settlement. The fishermen have announced their intention not to go out, but that does not change the situation. They have constantly threatened not to go out, but if the situation were to change for the better, as we all hope it may do in the near future, then the fishermen would resume fishing. But to suggest that a state of urgency has arisen to this extent is going quite beyond the terms of the argument.
Mr. Speaker: All those are matters which have been in my mind. It is a continuing matter, and so far as Ministerial responsibility is concerned, there is nothing which brings it within the Standing Order.
Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. Since a number of the skippers and men involved in this dispute are my constituents, and since I put a plan before the Minister some 10 days ago for the settlement of this problem, am I not entitled to ask a question on it?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Paget: I wish to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House on a different ground which, in my submission, will comply with your Ruling. The urgency here seems to be, not the failure to agree with the Icelandic Government, which is a continuing matter, but the fact, which is new and urgent, that trawlers are not leaving the ports today; and that within the next week or so the result of that strike will be borne by the housewives. I would therefore ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"The failure of the Government to take action to put our trawlers to sea to catch fish for our homes."
The Government have requisitioning powers which they could put into operation. They can end this strike. They have the power to do so, and in my submission it is their responsibility.
Mr. Bowles: While the Motion is being brought to you, Mr. Speaker, may I say—
Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to speak while the Motion is being brought to me.
Mr. Bowles: Before you give your Ruling, may I make a submission?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on an urgent matter of definite public importance, namely,
"The failure of the Government to take action to put our trawlers to sea to catch fish for our homes."
Mr. Bowles: On a point of order. Before you give your Ruling, may I refer to the first of the reasons which you gave for refusing to accept the last Motion? You said that a continuing failure was not definite and did not come within the Standing Order. I have a precedent for you, Mr. Speaker. During the war, I obtained the leave of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown to move the Adjournment of the House on the continuing failure of the Government to take adequate steps to prevent a series of accidents in Transport Command. That was a definite and urgent matter of public importance—the continuing failure of the Government to act. Therefore, before you give a Ruling, I submit, with great respect, that your first reason last time was wrong.
Mr. Speaker: These two cases are quite distinguishable. I will now deal with this one, which refers to the failure of the Government to take action to put our trawlers to sea to catch fish for our homes. My objection to this Motion, though I must admit that it is nearer the mark, is that, as I understand it, there is no failure to put our trawlers to sea. I gather that only a certain number of trawlers have refused to go. I know no more about this matter than the House in general. If trawlers are going to sea—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can I have the facts?
Sir T. Dugdale: A proportion of the long-distance trawlers from Grimsby are not going to sea as from last night but, of course, a large number of trawlers are fishing at present. I said in my statement, speaking of the action of the Trawler Officers' Guild, that they are acting within their legal rights in taking the action they have taken. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, cannot dictate to them in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Therefore, it is a partial stoppage and I understand that there is no Ministerial responsibility or power to send them to sea. Is not it like interfering with a strike of some sort?
Mrs. Castle: Is not it the responsibility of the Government of the day to maintain the food supplies of the country? Also, is not it a fact that action was taken last night which threatens the interruption of these food supplies at a time when the difficulties of feeding the people are exceedingly acute? In view of that, does not this matter lie within the responsibility of the Government, and is not it one of urgency?
Mr. Paget: The Government have powers to protect food supplies as they did when they sent troops into the docks. Could not they use those powers to requisition trawlers?
Mrs. Braddock: I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact that there was a discussion between two of the Icelandic experts and the Foreign Office last Monday. I want to know whether it is possible to get information about the complete breakdown of those negotiations last Monday, as they have a direct effect upon what is happening. This is a most important matter. I believe that it is of the utmost urgency.
There is present a representative of the Foreign Office. He knows that that is the position. The Icelandic experts came here specifically to discuss with the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office gave instructions to certain of the Icelandic trawlers on Friday last. That advice was carried out most explicitly by the Icelandic trawlers, following the request from the Foreign Office. No reciprocal agreement was made by the Foreign Office. This is an important matter. There is any amount of information with reference to it. There are documents and statements by both sides, and I suggest that it is of the utmost importance that this House should have that information at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that that is true. I have to decide whether this Motion falls within the Standing Order, and I must say that it does not. What is being urged as a ground for the Motion is the failure of the Government

2065
to take action to put our trawlers to sea. I understand now that this strike took place last night, and I do not think that the failure of ships to go to sea this morning is a matter sufficiently urgent as to come within the Standing Order.
Mr. Ede: The Minister made the statement, which I understand is borne out by what information we have, that when the long-distance trawlers that are now at sea return to port the effect of the decision taken by the trawler owners last night will be that the returning trawlers will be laid up and will not put to sea again. In these circumstances, it seems to be the clear duty of the Government to take the action that is open to them under Regulation 55, about which we shall hear later today, to maintain this essential branch of industry. It is clear that their failure to do it, and the mere acceptance of the action of the trawler owners as the last word, brings this matter within the terms of the Standing Order.
Mr. Law: Is not it most important that the facts of the matter should be beyond dispute? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just suggested that it is owing to the action of the trawler owners that these vessels are not going to sea. It is not. It is owing to the action of the skippers and men.
Mr. M. MacMillan: With regard to that part of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which says that there is no apparent Ministerial responsibility, I should like to say, with great respect and subject to correction, that under the Sea Fish Industry Act passed by the last Parliament the Government have a direct statutory obligation to maintain food supplies. They have power to direct the White Fish Authority, as their instrument, to ensure that supplies are maintained. The Government have power to give directions to the White Fish Authority and even to see that they requisition vessels to make sure that supplies are maintained. Therefore, I suggest that there is a direct responsibility on the Government at least to give directions to the Authority set up by Parliament to maintain food supplies. I hope that you will consider that point.
Mr. Speaker: When I was talking about Ministerial responsibility, I was
2066
dealing with the first Motion which alleged that, because the Government had failed to agree with the Icelandic Government, that brought this matter within their responsibility. I made the point there that that would be unreasonable because we cannot force people to agree with an unreasonable opponent. But on this matter there are still some doubts about the facts.
What I propose to say now is the best Ruling I can give on the subject, and I think that it is definite. I shall Rule this Motion out of order at the moment because I do not see that the threat to our food supplies is so urgent or close as to invoke the Standing Order; but I shall do so without prejudice to the matter being raised again should the situation show features which make it desirable to bring the matter urgently before the House. That is my Ruling on the matter.
Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister make a further statement on this subject, perhaps on Monday, to give us a chance to know what is happening?
Sir T. Dugdale: I will certainly arrange to make a further statement, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, on Monday.
Mr. Morrison: Will the Minister convey to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip the fact that, in view of the discussion which has taken place, with the demand for a debate, and so on, it really is not treating the House quite right that such a statement calculated to produce this kind of discussion should be made and that neither the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House nor the Government Chief Whip should be in his place? It is another act of contempt of the House.
Sir T. Dugdale: In answer to that, may I say that I will certainly bring the view of the right hon. Gentleman to the notice of my colleagues, but I took the very first opportunity of coming to the House today with the statement which I have made.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless hon. Members are rising to points of order, the whole matter is over.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of order. I have been sitting here and rising in an

2067
effort to ask a question, which is not a point of order, as a result of the statement of my right hon. Friend. We have been kept—all those of us who wanted to ask honest questions—
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Taylor: With great respect, some of us wanted to ask questions arising out of the statement of my right hon. Friend, and we waited until a number of points of order were raised—some of them fictitious points of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) make two statements—one, by inference, that questions put to you were not honest questions, and secondly, the further statement to the effect that there were fictitious points of order and questions. The question that I should like to ask is whether that is not a reflection on the capabilities of Mr. Speaker and on the Chair, and may I further ask whether that statement should not be withdrawn?
Mr. Speaker: I think it is undesirable to make accusations of that character. As regards reflections upon myself, I do not think any was intended.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not rise when I am on my feet. As regards any reflection on myself, I think I can stand that.
Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. May I have your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker? My constituents are more affected by this decision than those of any other constituency, and I wish to ask you by what method their point of view can be put to you, when hon. Members have been waiting here for three-quarters of an hour and constantly rising, and yet have not been called?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was merely unfortunate. There is no point of order in that.

BILL PRESENTED
  AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL) BILL
  "to make it an offence to remove surface soil from land in certain circumstances; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Vaughan-Morgan; supported by Mr. Crouch, Mr. Champion, Colonel Clarke, Mr. Philips Price, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Baker White, Mr. Peart, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Gooch and Mr. John Hall; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th November, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)
4.33 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under Section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.
I have read the Motion, because these are somewhat complicated fields, and I wanted to make clear to hon. Members who have any doubt about the matter that this is a Motion to continue the whole Act of 1945, and is not cast in the form in which the next Motion is cast, which continues specified Regulations. I only wanted to make that clear, and I apologise to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have given a great deal of attention to this subject and had discovered it for themselves.
I think it would be helpful if I remind the House for a moment of the nature of the procedure upon which it is about to embark. It consists of the presentation of an Address by both Houses of Parliament to Her Majesty in the terms of the Motion, and, when this has been done, an Order in Council is made, and has to be placed before Parliament after it is made.
Perhaps I should also remind the House briefly of the nature of the powers which it is about to consider. They are the economic and financial powers derived from the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, and from the Regulations which have been made under it. The nature and scope of these powers can be gauged from the list of Regulations and codes of Regulations which are set out in pages 3 and 4 of the Command Paper which has been presented to Parliament.
The House will recall that, a year ago, the Government asked Parliament to maintain the status quo for a time, for the reason that they had not had the time to examine all these complex powers in all their details, and I undertook that the
2070
Government would proceed with a careful review of all the powers in question, and that, in carrying out this review, we should keep four possibilities in mind.
The first of these possibilities was that we might find that some of the powers could be relinquished altogether before there was any question of their having to be renewed again. Secondly, we might wish to propose that some should be embodied in legislation requiring annual renewal by Parliament. Thirdly, we believed that it would turn out that a few of the powers in question ought to be embodied in permanent legislation. Finally, we thought that we should find that some of the Regulations required to be continued for a further period. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to comment on each of those four possibilities one by one.
May I first deal with the powers that have been relinquished or are going to be relinquished? I have pointed out in our debates on this subject that Regulations can be revoked at any time, so that it was possible, as the year proceeded, to discontinue certain Regulations without waiting for the completion of the review that was in progress.
May I take, as an example, the fact that we revoked Regulation 60BA which extended the powers of the Miners' Welfare Commission, because that Commission was discontinued under the Miners' Welfare Act, 1952. Generally speaking, however, it has proved convenient to defer revocation until the first stage of the Government's review of emergency powers have been completed, and, as hon. Members will see from the White Paper, quite a number of other Regulations and codes of Regulations, which were renewed a year ago, are not to continue in force after 10th December.
The instruments in this category are the nine separate Regulations and the code of Regulations set out at the bottom of page 2 of the White Paper which has been laid before the House. Since that time, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has completed discussions with the local authority associations and the London County Council about Regulation 68CA. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that it is necessary to keep a firm check on transfer of housing accommodation to other purposes. On the other hand, he is also

2071
satisfied that adequate powers of control are given by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which was, of course, enacted after the Defence Regulations which I have mentioned. He has therefore reached the conclusion that that Regulation should not be retained.
But the process of revocation does not end with those Regulations which are not to be renewed. Hon. Members may have noticed the statement on page 3 of the White Paper, that it was also the intention to revoke in part some of the Regulations which it was intended to keep in force.
This is not unimportant because the process of partial revocation affects no less than 28 separate Regulations, and in the majority of cases the power conferred in the Regulation will be reduced by its partial revocation. In other cases the power will not be altered, but the authority to whom the power is granted will be precluded from making fresh use of the power in the future.
May I give an example of what I have in mind here? Regulation 68A and other cognate Regulations set up a licensing system authorising the reconditioning and thereafter the occupying of condemned houses for the purpose of homes for farm workers and homeless persons. No fresh licences will be issued, but houses now occupied under existing licences will continue to be available for occupation for that purpose.
I think it fair to say that, in some respects, the effect of the partial revocations which it is proposed to make are no less significant than those of revocation in full, and I should like to give the House a few examples of this. I will take as my first one the proposal to revoke paragraphs 1 to 3 of Regulation 62, which authorised the issue of directions about the cultivation, management and use of land for agricultural purposes. Hon. Members may remember that paragraphs 2 and 2A of this Regulation, which will not be continued, authorised the dispossession, if necessary by force, of a tenant of agricultural land who had failed to comply with a direction under the Regulation. That is a very important change which is made by partial revocation.
Secondly, it is proposed to abrogate the power of the Minister of Labour under Regulation—
Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just mentioned a very important Regulation dealing with agriculture which appeared to be contrary to a statement made during the weekend by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Will there be published before we part with these Regulations a statement regarding what the Amendments to the 28 Regulations which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned will be, and shall we have an opportunity of discussing them?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to look into the point which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned about my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because I did not know about it. But the position is, as the right hon. Gentleman heard when business was announced to-day, that there will be another opportunity next week, and, if I might leave it for the moment, I would look into the point generally before committing myself on this specific point so that I can see whether any information is not available to the House or whether it is included by reference which I would like to confirm.
Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned 28 Regulations which are to be amended, and I understand that as he does not want to overburden his speech by going through the whole 28 he is going to give us some examples. But I think the House should be in possession of the knowledge in some convenient form regarding the 28 Regulations which are being amended or varied.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will just allow me to look at another note for a moment so that I may be able to help him with the point which, of course, I am very anxious to do. I could, if it would not bore the House, mention them very shortly and the effect of the Amendments if that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, which I am very anxious to do, and then it would be in the OFFICIAL REPORT for reference. I will do it at once if the right hon. Gentleman would so prefer.
Mr. Ede: I think that would be desirable because I understand that if we

2073
dispose of this Motion today it will not be possible to reopen the matter. Therefore, I think we should know which of the 28 regulations it is proposed to vary.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to intervene for a moment? I do not wish to spoil this agreement between the two Front Benches, but some other hon. Members are interested, too, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no publication whatever of the Amendments which it is proposed to make to these 28 regulations. I should also like to point out to him that it is really quite impossible either to discuss or to consider this matter without knowing more than he can tell us in the course of the debate, things he may indeed say in the absence of other hon. Members who do not know what is happening now, and, in short, without knowing exactly in written form what the Amendments are.
Speaking for myself and perhaps for some other hon. Members, I suggest that we shall be put in very great difficulty in this discussion unless it can definitely be continued at some time when those written Amendments are available. We shall find difficulty in speaking on these matters today on a bare statement by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Further to that point. I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if, in these circumstances, you would consider a Motion to adjourn the debate because the Government have provided us with a White Paper which those of us who have Amendments down on this and other Motions have studied. We have gone through the Regulations referred to, and in any case they are two years out of date and a great deal of work has had to be done concerning them. The Home Secretary comes along and very obligingly tells us that it is not quite what it seems because certain alterations have to be made.
We have no way of knowing, without a great deal of study, what alterations these Amendments would make, and although I sympathise with my right hon. Friend who asks for details to be given us now, it would be quite impossible for us, in the time taken up in telling us about those proposed alterations, to consider what effect they will have on our
2074
point. I really think that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should give consideration to a Motion to adjourn the debate, especially as there is other business coming up this afternoon, and as, in any case, the Leader of the House has assured us that we shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter.
Mr. Clement Davies: I support what has been suggested about adjourning this debate for the reason that if the House today agrees to the Motion moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the matter will pass completely out of our hands and we shall have no, further power to deal with it whatsoever. We may be disagreeing completely with what has been done under the Act and then the Act will come into force again and we shall have no other opportunity of dealing with the matter. Surely, we should have the fullest information because here we are dealing with the continuance of an Act which, according to the Government, ought to have been dead long ago.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I could not accept a Motion for the adjournment.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very anxious to give the greatest help I can, and, therefore, I shall accept what the right hon. Gentleman said and go through the Regulations with a short explanation, and I will ask the House to forgive me for the extra time that it may take. In Regulation 52 (4) relating to Ministry of Supply powers to make byelaws—
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us the page of the document? It would help hon. Members trying to find the place. It is really very difficult for us if he just calls out "Regulation 55" which, in his index here, does not give the page, and it takes quite a time to find it, and by the time we find it he is on the next but two of the Regulations he is altering.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, but I could not do that. It would mean turning up the page each time.
Mr. Bing: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying he does not know on which page of the book is the Regulation he is proposing to alter?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was being serious. I do not remember the numbers of pages. I have used that book constantly up to a year ago, and I have always done so by turning to the page of the book where the Regulation is; and as the Regulations are in numerical order it has never caused me any difficulty.
Mr. Bing: But they are not even in numerical order.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly, the main Regulations are. There are subsidiary ones attached. I am trying to be helpful. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to have a bit of fun—if I may put it colloquially—I do not mind in the least; but in my book the Regulations follow each other numerically. Some, of course, have gone, but those that are left follow each other in numerical order. These are the main Regulations.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: May I suggest—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No. I am sorry. I am not giving way.
Mr. Thomas Mr. Thomas rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Gentleman must keep his seat.
Mr. Thomas: On a point of order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how any point of order can arise.
Mr. Thomas: I am putting a point of order. Is it not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to enable hon. Members who wish to follow what he is pointing out—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Thomas: But I am asking your assistance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to enable hon. Members to follow what the Secretary of State—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Thomas: Surely it is a point of order to put to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is the duty to require the Secretary of State, when he makes statements and quotations from documents, to make those quotations referable—easily referable—so that hon. Members may follow what he is talking about.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Thomas: On a point of order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot pursue this matter any further. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Thomas: On a point of order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it the same point?
Mr. Thomas: I am putting a point of order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it the same?
Mr. Thomas: It is not the same point. I am putting as a point of order now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, in deference to Mr. Speaker himself or to Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that he should make himself intelligible by quoting—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That seems to me precisely the same point I have already ruled upon.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Now I take Regulation 54B, which is being revoked as far as regards the community feeding centres and the heat treatment of milk.
Mr. Bing Mr. Bing rose—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry. I am doing my best, and I am not going to give way again. I have spent a great deal of time on this.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Which words are to be omitted? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No. This procedure was carried out for years under the Labour Government. It has been carried out before. Never has there been any information given as to the actual words, and I am doing this today only because the right hon. Gentleman asked me to do it. I was going to give only some examples; but out of deference to his desire for full information I am giving the effect of the changes, I really think that, in doing that, I am going farther than anyone has ever gone before. One must face up to the position. When one is asked to go a great deal further than the Government which hon. Gentlemen opposite supported ever went, then one

2077
does begin to doubt whether the request is being made in a search for information or is not a waste of time.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order. As I understand it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we are discussing a Motion. That Motion is to renew a Section of the Act which, in its turn, renews a number of Regulations. We are now told that the Regulations which we are being asked to renew are not the Regulations which have been supplied to us. Is it in order for the Government to put a Motion in which the House is not allowed to know what power that Motion gives them, and are we not entitled to ask, where there is a change, what that change is?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order. So far as I can gather the Home Secretary is doing his best to explain what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know.
Mr. Paget: I do not think you can have followed what I was saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Home Secretary referred to Regulation 54B. He said that was now altered—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He said that that is being altered by the omission of two matters. We asked him what words were being omitted—or what lines; and he refuses to tell us. If this Motion is to retain or to get rid of certain powers, surely the House is entitled to know what they are. It seems to me a reasonable request.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be, but it is not a point of order.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I did, in the introduction to my speech, explain the procedure which is followed. It is a complicated procedure, and I quite appreciate—without making any reflection on the hon. and learned Gentleman—his not having it completely in mind. Let me remind the House. There is a presentation of an Address by both Houses to Her Majesty in the terms of the Motion. When this has been done an Order in Council is made, and this has to be laid before Parliament after it is made.
Of course, the Order in Council will contain the full information, but I thought it would be convenient—and I am always prepared, as, I hope, the House will recognise, to do my best to keep the House informed—if I were to take the
2078
exceptional course of explaining the effect of the Amendments in what, I hope, are comprehensible terms. I think it is quite unreasonable to expect me to go beyond that and to give the exact Amendments in detail; and, with the greatest respect, I do not propose to do it. I am quite prepared to go the extent that I have said.
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: On a point of order. In the event of Orders in Council being brought forward to modify these partial revocations of Regulations, will those Orders in Council or their contents be debatable in the House? If not, it means that this is the last Parliamentary occasion upon which we shall have an opportunity of considering these partial revocations.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has this amount of strength in the point he has made, and it is what has induced me to take this course. We renew the whole Act. As I pointed out—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the time—we are renewing an Act which contains these matters in its Schedules. We renew the Act as a whole, and I intended only to give examples of what I thought were the most important ones that we intended to revoke in part. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to deal with the numbers, and I am therefore going to explain them. In the usual way that one does, I tried to take the sense of the House, to see whether they wanted me to go into such detail, which has never been done before, and I am prepared to do so. The ultimate form, as I said, will appear later. The Regulations which are being revoked—
Mr. Elwyn Jones Mr. Elwyn Jones rose—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I really cannot give way again.
Mr. Benn Mr. Benn rose—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No. I am doing this with the intention of helping everyone. I think hon. Gentlemen might hear what I have to say, and then they can consider later whether they wish to ask for further information.
Regulation 54B is revoked so far as regards community feeding centres and the heat treatment of milk; 55, so far as

2079
first of all, the restriction on the jurisdiction of summary and quarter sessions courts and the control of undertakings; 55AB, so far as regards restriction on jurisdiction; 56 so far as concerns the control of undertakings; 56A, so far as regards restriction on jurisdiction. I shall come back to 58A, because I consider it most important. I shall deal with that after I have read the list. I have already mentioned 62, and I will come back to it again. Then 62A is revoked so far as regards a local authority cultivating land; 68A—
Mr. Elwyn Jones: It is quite impossible to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman would like the loan of a pencil I will give one to him with great pleasure, then he can take down the numbers. If I am reading them out too fast I will go slower.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: That is all I was saying.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am anxious to meet the House. Sometimes one comes into the Chamber without a pencil or paper, and I merely wanted to know whether the hon. Gentleman wished to make a list, because I was quite prepared to help him.
Regulations 68A and 68AA are revoked except in relation to houses in respect of which licences are already in force; the same applies to the revocation of 68B and 68BB; 68CB will be revoked except in relation to accommodation already registered or in respect of which an application for registration has been made; 72, so far as regards Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 10 of the London Hackney Carriages Act, 1843, and Section 8 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869; 85, so far as regards Regulation 62; 90, so far as regards the words
"or does any act preparatory to the commission of";
93, so far as regards words which have ceased to have effect; 99, so far as regards the exercise of powers of the Attorney-General and a chief officer of police; and 100, 101 and 102 so far as regards certain provisions which have become of no effect.
2080
Perhaps I might then turn to certain codes. The Defence (Price Control) Regulations, 1945, Nos. 6, 18 and 19 are revoked so far as regards the restrictions on the jurisdiction of summary courts and courts of quarter sessions.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit me—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I just finish the list?
The Defence (Recovery of Fines) Regulations, 1942, Nos. 12 and 14, so far as regards certain provisions which have become of no effect; because of the revovation of other Regulations, these provisions have become of no effect. Then there are two more which I should have mentioned earlier. Regulation 52 paragraph (4), relating to the Minister of Supply's power to make byelaws under the Military Lands Acts, and No. 72 paragraph (1C), allowing persons under 21 to drive agricultural tractors.
Mr. Benn: May I ask one point? No. 52 is not even listed in the White Paper as a Regulation to be continued. If I may put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with due respect, this is an infernal muddle, because it is impossible for us to follow when some of them are not even specified in the White Paper.
Mr. Ede: Might I point out that Regulation 52 comes under the next Motion, not under this one?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is so, and that is why I did not give it in my first list. It should come in under the next Motion. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Irvine: May I put this to the Home Secretary? He was good enough to say that I could take this up when he had come to the end of his list. The House appreciates the difficulty he is in. To take an example, he told us that Regulation 93 is to be partially revoked so far as regards words that have ceased to have effect. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any indication in respect of a particular Regulation and which the words are? If he cannot, is not the House in an intolerable position?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, the House is not in an intolerable position. I really do ask the hon. Gentleman to be fair.
Mr. Irvine: I am trying to be.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have indicated with regard to these Regulations that all that is being revoked are words which are not now of effect. The hon. Gentleman really must be reasonable in the matter. It is a necessary consequence of codes of this kind that certain things cease to be of effect, and I am telling him that that is all the revocation that takes place there. I really think that that is sufficient.
I did think, and I still think—although I have tried to meet hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—that there were some five matters which deserved comment on these partial revocations. I had dealt with No. 62, which I consider is important because of the effect of the paragraphs I have mentioned. I think it is also important—and I drew attention to it in giving the list—that we propose to abrogate the power of the Minister of Labour under Regulation 58A to regulate the duration and situation of the employment of workers, and to require compulsory registration of particulars of employers and employees. These are important matters.
Thirdly, there is Regulation 62A under which, among other things, local authorities who hold land—including requisitioned land—occupied by them have been empowered to cultivate it even if the cultivation would otherwise be illegal and constitute a breach of trust or covenant. That power is now to be discontinued.
Then, where several of the Regulations are concerned—Regulations 55, 55AB, 56A and the Defence (Price Control) Regulations—the Director of Public Prosecutions or the other prosecuting authority will lose the right to require that the case should not be tried by a court of summary jurisdiction. As hon. Members of the legal profession will remember, trial by jury has the effect of exposing offenders to much heavier penalties than those which might be awarded by a court of summary jurisdiction.
I would draw the attention of the House to Regulation 90, where it is proposed to delete the words:
"… or does any act preparatory to the commission of …"
The deletion of those words will mean that it is no longer possible to prosecute for acts which are held to be preparatory
2082
to the commission of an offence under the Regulations. This surrender of a power is one which I am sure will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Mr. Paget: Surely Regulation 90 does not come under this Motion.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know if the hon. and learned Gentleman has considered that point, but I think it is an important one.
Mr. Bing: On a point of order. We really are in quite an impossible position. We are discussing Regulations which are made under another Act altogether and which are subject to another Motion which is coming up and also to an Amendment of a second Motion. Regulation 90, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now discussing, was made under the Emergency Powers Act, which is not yet before the House. It is difficult enough to follow the matters which come within the scope of this particular Act, but the House is thrown into complete confusion when the right hon. and learned Gentleman rushes off and deals with a matter which is contained in another Act of Parliament. I respectfully suggest that he should be directed to confine himself to the discussion of the Motion which is before the House.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It might help if we were to confine ourselves to matters concerning the Supplies and Services Act.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did want to list what I considered to be the most important matters that were to be dealt with by partial revocation. The hon. and learned Member is strictly correct and I apologise to the House for including that Regulation. I thought it would be to the advantage of the House to know which Regulations, in my view, were of importance.
Mr. Paget: Further to this point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. According to the White Paper which he has given us, Regulations 82 to 105 are shown as being on the first Motion. But the White Paper is quite wrong because Regulation 90 comes under the Emergency Powers Act. We have a White Paper which is entirely deceptive. A good many of us have done a lot of work on this matter and apparently that work is quite useless because the information which the

2083
Government has given us is completely wrong.
In those circumstances, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would not you reconsider the question of adjourning the debate so that we can have an opportunity to consider the mistakes in the White Paper and the information which is impossible to absorb at the rate we have received it, in the middle of a speech? It really is impossible to carry on this debate in the responsible manner in which we ought, as Members of Parliament, to consider these powers, when everything is presented to us in such a chaotic muddle on the basis of an entirely deceptive White Paper.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman says that Regulation 90 is not continued by the Supplies and Services Act. I understood that it was continued by both Acts, and that position is confirmed by the notes in page 88 of the green book. I always hesitate to contradict a legal colleague when he tells me something flatly, but that is the information with which I have been supplied and I have confirmed it myself.
Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. I seriously suggest that the House is not being properly dealt with in connection with this matter. The Home Secretary is listing a whole set of sequential Orders and Regulations referred to in the White Paper which has been submitted to the House—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Thomas: I suggest that my point be heard before a decision is made with regard to it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised several points which he thought to be points of order and they have all proved not to be points of order. I hope this one is.
Mr. Thomas: I must confess that I cannot determine whether the point I am raising is a point of order before I have put it and the reply has been received. I am putting this as a point of order in order to discover whether it is, in fact, a point of order and whether, if it is a point of order, action should be taken accordingly.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it will help the hon. Gentleman perhaps I should say that if there is some doubt about it being a point of order I should think it very likely is not. [Laughter.]
Mr. Thomas: I join in the general amusement which that remark created, especially as my name happens to be Thomas and I might be looked upon as a Doubting Thomas.
My point is that the Home Secretary is listing in his speech certain Regulations or parts of Regulations which the Government propose shall not be revoked or shall be revoked only in part. In the course of listing those Regulations or parts of Regulations he quotes certain words of certain of those Regulations or parts of Regulations. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to list, merely verbally, the wording of Regulations or parts of Regulations which it is proposed shall be revoked or revoked only in part, without the House having laid before it the actual wording which it is intended to retain or to revoke?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My suspicions were correct. That is not a point of order.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would point out that the giving of that list was in answer to a request by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I am quite sure that when the right hon. Gentleman asks me anything he has a serious reason for doing so and I was therefore very glad to comply with his request; but I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said what he has about Regulation 90. I have looked at the White Paper and it says:
"82 to
105 General and supplementary provisions."
Unless my arithmetic has gone very wrong the numbers 82 to 105 include number 90. These are Regulations which are included and, as is stated at the top of Page 2, of the White Paper:
"The final result is that the continuation of the Supplies and Services Act will keep in force the following Regulations."
—including Regulation 90. The hon. and learned Member said to me a moment ago that Regulation 90 was not continued under the Supplies and Services Act. I really should have thought that

2085
as he has now discovered the point it was in accordance with the candour which the House expects of him that he should say so.
Mr. Paget: I shall be most happy to take the opportunity to do so—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I wanted to get it clear.
Mr. Paget: I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given way. If he looks, he will find it in the Schedule to the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act at line 25 which sets out under that Act Regulations 90 to 93 and various others. What is mystifying me is why it is necessary to renew the same thing in both Acts.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is an entirely different point. I pointed out to the hon. and learned Member a quarter of an hour ago that it was continued under both Acts. The reason for that is that the procedural Regulations apply to Regulations that are maintained under both Acts and it is necessary to apply them. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his apology, I am not rubbing it in, but I want to point out—the same goes for myself and most of us in the House—that we all have to be careful in this procedure. I think we should be a little cautious in throwing charges about before we have fully considered the matter.
I have dealt with the first category and the second possibility was that when we undertook our review of these emergency powers we might find it possible and desirable to embody some of them in legislation requiring annual renewal by Parliament. The powers in question here are probably the most complex of all the powers with which we are concerned in this debate today. I am not going to quote individual Regulations, but am merely giving examples. They cover the fields of requisition of land, of price control, of the control of industry, of the control of labour and employment—
Mr. C. Davies: Is that Regulation still in existence? I thought that the Minister of Labour in the late Government had actually withdrawn it at that Box.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind
2086
—speaking from memory—an undertaking not to use it, which was given by the penultimate Minister of Labour in a debate in which both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I took part.
I was indicating to the House that the Regulations which are left cover all the field of economic control. I mentioned three and I give two other examples, building and agriculture, to show the immense complexity of the law which they now govern. I want to assure hon. Members that the possibility which the Government had in mind a year ago of ultimately including these wide economic controls in legislation renewable annually has received, and is continuing to receive, the most careful consideration in order that the Government may prepare such legislation of this kind as may appear to them to be desirable when the opportunity for legislation on the subject should occur.
The right hon. Member for South Shields chided me with not having done something in this direction. I put it to him and to everyone who has had to consider as a duty the question of preparing and drafting legislation that when the diversity and complexity of the subject is considered it is not unreasonable that one should need a longer period before one prepares and submits legislation on these matters.
There is the further point, which, as a former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member will have in mind, of the time it would take when the legislation was prepared and submitted. If he could try to imagine, with all the ingenuity that is behind him today in discussing an Act, trying to put in statutory form requisition of land, or even price control, or the question of control of industry, he would appreciate that it would take so much Parliamentary time that it would be out of the question at the moment. That is my defence. I only ask the House to accept my assurance that I have studied the problem during the year and that that was the conclusion which was forced upon me.
I now want to turn to the powers embodied in permanent legislation. The third possibility in the mind of the Government in carrying out its review was that of embodying in permanent legislation emergency powers which could be seen to be permanently required. Hon.

2087
Members will no doubt now have studied the Bill for that purpose, which the Government have introduced in another place. I was a little surprised at the suggestion made recently by the right hon. Member for South Shields that the Government were not justified in introducing a Bill on this subject in another place. I agree that it is true that the matters dealt with in the Bill are important—but to what Bill does this not apply, in some minds at least?
I could not accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the matters covered by this Bill affect the liberties of the subject in so special a way as to make it inappropriate for the Bill to receive consideration first in another place. The right hon. Member will appreciate that this is the category of those powers which are going to be embodied not only in permanent form but for permanent use. They are matters which have shown themselves to be useful although they were introduced for emergency purposes.
That is the change that has been made and it seemed to me that the earlier that change was made the better and the arrangements as to time which I had in mind will be apparent to everyone. Of course this is not the occasion—and it would be wrong for me—to comment in detail on the contents of that Bill. There will be an ample opportunity for me to do so in the future, and for hon. Members to express their views.
Today, the matter that is relevant is that, as the White Paper says, this Bill will make possible the discontinuance of six further Regulations which subsist by virtue of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945. In the meantime, these Regulations must continue in force and this is provided for in the second Motion at present before the House.
The fourth possibility which the Government always foresaw was that, whatever might be the results of the review, a number of the powers would have to be continued for a further period in their present form. On the question of their continuance, I hardly need to remind the House in detail of the nature of the powers or the effect that their discontinuance would have, because they are needed for defence purposes, for economic purposes and also for the winding up of
2088
war-time and immediately post-war problems which is still going on.
If I may turn for a moment to the question of the period for which Parliament should be asked to renew these emergency powers, I should like to remind the House that the regulations can be revoked at any time and it is certainly the intention of the Government to exercise a continuous and vigilant review of this field of emergency powers and to lose no opportunity of relinquishing further powers where this is justified by the circumstances.
I think that some real progress has been made with the process of dispensing with war-time powers. After all, it is quite a considerable achievement that 24 Regulations and six codes of Regulations should have gone since the Government took over. Numerically, and I only put it numerically, they are more than a quarter of the existing Regulations. But I ask the House to consider that these that are left have a double quality which has made my task difficult. First, they are of the utmost importance in the machinery of Government at the present time, and, secondly, they are the most difficult to prepare and draft in legislative form.
But I do not want to spend the time of the House in explaining my difficulty. I thought the House ought to know the result, and the method with which I had approached it. I want to make it clear that I am asking for this extension on the basis that throughout this year, as throughout the last, the Government will consider all the time what Regulations can be abandoned and, as soon as they can be abandoned, will revoke them at once.
There is one other matter which is not unconnected with the Motions before the House. Hon. Members from all quarters of the House have shown a great interest in it—and I should like simply to sum up the results of our action up to the present time—and that is the question of the power of entry without warrant. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House would want to know where we stand.
Hon. Members will remember that on 15th July last my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that the total number of

2089
officials possessing such powers was 16,744, including 3,887 empowered with a warrant to enter private houses used exclusively as such. These numbers represent a reduction since June, 1951, of 2,451 in the total number and 2,101 in those having power to enter private houses.
This matter has continued to receive close attention and I can now inform the House that the number of officials with power of entry will shortly be reduced to about 14,450, of whom 3,083 will be empowered to enter private premises. That is, there has been another reduction of about 2,300. These figures represent reductions since 1st June, 1951, of 4,745 in the total number of officials with powers of entry and 2,905 in the number of those empowered to enter private premises.
I see from the expression of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that he does not want me to be weary in well-doing, but wants that number reduced. But all these matters have to be considered in their context and I think that the House will be glad to know that that very considerable reduction has been made. I should also like to say one thing which is only fair to those who have to carry out these duties. I think that in many cases the reason that one has been able to carry on administration in difficult fields without these powers, having relinquished them, is because the human beings who have had to carry them out have, in many cases, carried them out well and with so little criticism that people have been ready to deal with the matter on a voluntary basis and have made the retention of these men unnecessary. I believe that, in an unpopular field like this, this House should be careful always to recognise the difficulties of the actual people who have had to do what is considered an unpopular act.
This will be a convenient time to deal with the very important question of how Parliament can best be enabled to exercise proper control not only over these Orders under emergency Regulations but under delegated legislation generally. This is a matter on which we on this side of the House have made our attitude clear on more than one occasion. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite
2090
have also shown their readiness to consider how the supremacy of Parliament should be observed amid the changing conditions of modern life that add so enormously to the complications of Parliament and the need for quick action, which is one justification of delegated legislation in certain circumstances.
The Government are very willing that an inquiry should be held into the procedures for exercising Parliamentary control over delegated legislation. I have used the word "inquiry" because I want to make it clear that the Government are not wedded to any form, for the very good reason that this is a matter that concerns the House and that it ought to be the kind of inquiry which the House as a whole would like. It is a House of Commons matter. It is a duty on all of us to see that this is done. The Government therefore will be very ready to discuss through the usual channels, in any way that will be suitable to the other parties, the precise form and scope of such an inquiry. When that discussion has taken place I hope that we will be able to agree on the best form of inquiry and that that will be done.
I feel that I have rather a personal apology to make to the House. This is a subject which has always interested me. At various times I have been bold enough to write upon it and perhaps I held out hopes last year that I myself would be able to put forward suggestions. But I think that the House is probably fortunate in my not having done so, because an inquiry by the House, approved by all quarters of the House, is, I think, the best way of dealing with this difficult question.
I apologise to the House for the length of my speech. Whether I was right or wrong in answering the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I hope he will take it that it was an attempt to help the House, done off the reel and as best as I could standing at this Box. Therefore, with these words, I should like to commend this Motion to the House and to ask the House to accept it.
Mr. Bing: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to deal with the reasons why it is proposed to revoke the Defence Regulation for the encouragement of exports?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think I had better leave that until later. I feel that I have detained the House sufficiently.
Mr. W. R. Williams: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind if I ask him this question. I have been following his excellent statement as carefully as I can, but there is one Regulation in which I am especially interested, and that is 68CA. This matter has been the subject of consideration between the Minister of Housing and Local Government, local authority associations and the London County Council. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made some reference to that.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did make some reference to it. I am afraid that I have been speaking for so long, and I blame no hon. Member for not having heard all of my speech. I did say that these discussions have taken place, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was satisfied that his powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts—if I may trust my memory, it is Section 14 (1)—are sufficient for that purpose.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add:
"the consideration of any proposal for the continuance in force of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, be deferred until the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, now pending in the Lords, has received the Royal Assent."
I must start by thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the patience and suavity with which he has dealt with the very difficult subject that he has had to handle this afternoon. I want also to express my thanks to him for having responded to my request that we should get some indication of the extent to which revocations that have taken place or are in process of taking place have, in fact, occurred, and some indication of what their effect is likely to be. I feel that although the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been put to great inconvenience in doing it, he has conclusively demonstrated the impossibility of our much longer proceeding in this House with discussions of this kind and in handling this kind of matter in the way that we are asked to do today.
2092
I welcome the statement that he made at the end of his speech. It is high time we had such an inquiry. I welcome particularly his statement that this is a House of Commons matter. There are some people who suggest that a Royal Commission or a coterie of businessmen—I hope that is not an offensive way of describing big businessmen—should step in and tell us how to run our business. My own view is that if we can get good will on both sides—and the attitude of the Government towards discussion in the House is not making that very easy—I believe that we could find ways of exercising an effective control and even of giving to the general body of the House opportunities of initiation which at the moment do not exist.
Therefore, I hope that whatever form the inquiry may take, it will be conducted by Members of the House only and will be successful. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having made the suggestion he has, and I can assure him that if his first advances are continued through the usual channels he will find that on this occasion they are completely open, and we hope there will be a two-way traffic through them.
Apart from that, I am bound to say that I found very little comfort in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not greatly impressed with the number of people who no longer have a right of entry; 14,450 appeared to me to be a very considerable number of persons to have this right, and while I join with him in expressing the thanks of the House to the people who have had this duty imposed upon them by the House, for the way in which they have done it, and the small number of cases in which there has been any friction, I cannot help thinking that the numbers might be still further reduced.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is evidently departing in some ways from the Conservative faith, for he expressed the view that some of the things that he was about to say had been brought to his notice by the changing circumstances of modern life. That is a good Radical attitude, and we can only hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will become more and more amenable to the pressures that the changing circumstances of modern life entail upon all of us.
I am bound to say that I was surprised at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's

2093
references to the introduction of the Bill, which is now pending, in another place. I should have thought this afternoon's speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in itself an eloquent and convincing statement in favour of such a Bill originating here in this House, which is responsible to the people for all these things that make an impact on their daily life, and where we have to shoulder the responsibilities. I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman during the past year had not had to give so much of his time to the assistance of the Ministry of Transport, we might have had rather more information from him this afternoon, and he might even have been able to put some of the theories which he has expressed in writing into rather a more definite form than he has done today.
On the other Amendments we shall deal in some detail with the various Regulations that are there referred to, but we are handicapped on this Motion by the fact that these revocations which have been announced this afternoon come to us sometimes as a complete surprise. Where they are partial it is very difficult to follow them, particularly in the way in which this has been done this afternoon—although we are all grateful for the courtesy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in endeavouring to help us in the matter.
Moreover, it makes it very difficult indeed to discover exactly what powers we are leaving the Government to exercise, and the extent to which normal activities may have been circumscribed by the partial revocations which are carried out. I hope that if next year we have to have a similar discussion, the White Paper that is issued will enable us to follow in detail exactly what we are being left with and exactly what alterations the Government have made.
I cannot help thinking that one of the difficulties that confront us in this matter is that once we have parted with this Motion, for a year there can take place the revocation of an order which we would desire to retain. This, so far as I know, we would have very great difficulty in discovering, and secondly, when we had discovered it we would have some difficulty in taking effective steps with regard to it.
2094
I cannot help thinking that Regulation 68CA gives a very good example of that. After all, it was only the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) last year which ensured that that Regulation was continued during the year that has since elapsed. On that occasion we did not have the benefit of the attendance of anybody representing the Ministry of Housing and Local Government until my hon. Friend moved the Adjournment, when the hon. Gentleman who represents that Department and whom we are glad to see here this afternoon came into the Chamber at the double—in fact, almost at such a pace that he made us lose our breath even if he had not lost his.
Regulation 68CA is a matter on which I hope we shall hear rather more from the Government this afternoon. It still gives very great misgivings to the local authorities, even with the explanations that have been so far tendered. In the populous county borough which I have the honour to represent in this House, and in which for many years my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) was one of the leading town councillors, we have had a good many applications under this Order. Some 16 cases have occurred there, and the town council have refused their consent in seven cases.
So far as I know, this is the only opportunity that we have of ascertaining from the Government whether their amended proposals, with which some of my hon. Friends hope to deal in detail during the course of these discussions, will be adequate to enable the local authority to discharge its duties in an area which has had a considerable housing shortage for many years, and which has suffered the loss of a good many houses from bombing, to secure that residential premises, some of which could be used for the housing of several families, should not be turned over to business purposes.
I hope that during the discussion of this Motion the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will be able to make a further statement to the one which has so far been made.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That was what I had in mind. I thought that it would be more satisfactory if my hon. Friend

2095
were to deal with the point at greater length, and that was why I did not go into it myself. He will deal with it.
Mr. Ede: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad to see that on this occasion he is supported by a number of hon. Members, Parliamentary Secretaries in various Departments, who, I hope, will be prepared, at the various stages of our discussions, to deal with any particular Order that may be challenged. I believe that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply must have a very good brief on this matter, because I find that on 13th November, 1952, before any information was given to this House, a circular was issued by the Conservative Research Department to hon. Members of this House who more or less support the Government, in which category I do not claim to be included, setting out what was the Government's policy.
I want to protest with the utmost vigour against the action of the Government in supplying for the private information of supporters of the Government information not generally available to Members of the House. If such information is to be circulated, and if decisions have been taken on a matter which was then known to be exciting the utmost interest of the local authorities represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the statement ought to have been made here for the general information of the House and of the public.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to make an unfair accusation, and I think that I am right in saying that all the information contained in the piece of paper to which he is referring had already been given to the local authority associations, and it was public knowledge amongst them.
Mr. Ede: What an answer. I am complaining that hon. Members of this House generally do not get information dealing with a matter that is of concern to every hon. Member in the House, because all of us represent areas, irrespective of the side of the House on which we sit, in which this is a matter of grave concern. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) says, "Well, the Government did
2096
not tell you, but it did tell the local authority associations." I do not think that is an adequate answer.
The local authority associations are very important bodies, but the responsibility of Ministers sitting on the Front Bench opposite is to this House. On a matter of this kind it ought not to be the fact that information is circulated privately through a party organisation to Members on one side of the House and not to every Member of the House. I do not wish to say anything more about that. My hon. Friends will deal with the merits of the matter in the various speeches which they will make.
I now come to the question of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was his third method of dealing with this mass of Orders, and that was by the inclusion of a few in permanent legislation, That legislation dealing with a very limited number of cases has been introduced in another place. One of the disadvantages we are in today is this. I would regard Regulation 68CA as being one which was very suitable for enshrining in permanent legislation in something like its present form, and I should like to have been in the position, before we parted with this Motion, of knowing that it had been permanently preserved appropriately.
After all, the statement made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government foreshadows something which has not yet been completed. I understand that there is to be some further legislation on this matter. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has written to the local authority associations, say the Conservative Research Department—one would think that it went through their postage book—saying,
"he has decided that an amendment should be made to the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, 1950, making it obligatory for local planning authorities to consult housing authorities where they propose to agree to a change of use from housing, and desiring that where agreement is not reached the matter should be referred to him."
He "desires," and is not taking any power to ensure that it shall be referred to him.
"Pending the amendment of the General Development Order, the Minister will ask all housing and planning authorities by circular to co-operate closely and to bear in mind the importance of conserving housing accommodation."

2097
It seems to me that that is precisely the thing that we ought to be able to discuss when we propose that this Order should be put into permanent form. I suggest that in this, as in other matters which we have had already this Session, the Government have got themselves and the House into great difficulties in the order in which they introduce matters for our consideration.
We ought not to part with the Motion until we have seen the Measure dealing with permanent legislation which it is proposed to originate to deal with some of the existing powers of the Government and have had an opportunity, if we so desire, of proposing new Clauses which would enable other Regulations—not all of them are harmful; many of them have been proved to be beneficial in their working—to be included in the Measure.
I do not wish to say any more at this stage on the Regulations which have been relinquished, but I was a little disappointed with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the second category, those which might be put into legislation subject to annual review. It is true that he pleaded that he had only been in office a year, but last year his plea was that he had been in office only a fortnight. I do not know what his plea will be next year; probably that he has had to give so much time to transport and the iron and steel industry that he has had to regard the Home Office as merely a part-time occupation.
Mr. John Hay: How long was the right hon. Gentleman there?
Mr. Ede: I was there for six years.
Mr. Hay: And did very little.
Mr. Ede: On the contrary, the complaint from the Opposition at that time was that I did too much.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman appealed to me as "an old Leader of the House." Having reached my 70th birthday, I wish he would not put so much emphasis on the "old." I have to put up with it from my great-nieces, but surely I do not have to put up with it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has talked about the ingenuity behind me; that is for him, as well as me, to take into consideration. I welcome the attention which my hon. Friends give to the matter. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously to consider
2098
having consultations between the two sides of the House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) as to what matters might be put into legislation with a view to making it reasonably possible to have some legislation at an early date.
I admit that the Government have to get these things through by 10th December, but I should hope that it would be possible to get the Measure through another place—the Government's majority there is not one which causes any anxiety to the Government Chief Whip; in the whole of my lifetime no Conservative Government have ever been embarrassed there in getting what they wanted when they wanted it—in sufficient time for us to be able to discuss it here before 10th December.
It is true that it might lead to some slight recasting of Government business for the week after next, but I cannot imagine that what the Government have to do so early in the Session is of any great urgency, whereas this matter might be one on which we could reach a fair measure of agreement. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to accept the Amendment so that we can deal in some spirit of give-and-take with the various matters which would then arise.
The loss of power by this House—I said this when I was Leader of the House and Home Secretary—over many of the things which intimately touch the lives of our people must be of grave concern to everyone who desires to see democracy real and vital in this country. I hope that, in consideration of these matters, many of which are forced on us by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly called "the changing circumstances of our time," we shall be able to find ways and means of enabling people to see that Parliamentary control is effective and that, when action is called for, Parliament can move swiftly, so that our conception of a democratic form of Government can in that way be justified.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I should like, in the first place, once again to express my full agreement as sincerely and as earnestly as I possibly can with what has been said in the last few sentences by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

2099
This is a matter which vitally affects not only this House, and not only this country, but democracy generally. I have had to point out before that although more Parliaments seem to have been created in the last 50 years, certainly during the period from 1914 down to today, each Parliament has gradually lost its power. There has been a whittling away of the power it hitherto exercised, which was gained after a long struggle, over centuries in the case of this House and this country; and the power Parliament had gained from the Executive has steadily, bit by bit, been going back into the hands of the Executive.
I welcome what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the way in which these matters can be dealt with in future. Frankly, I do not like legislation by Orders in Council. This House would have nothing to do with them when it had to struggle to maintain its position against the King in the 17th century, and it has been very jealous—rightly jealous—of its own power of having complete control over legislation. But one recognises that the Government Departments now have to deal with so many things that it is quite impossible in this House to go into all the detail that is required and deal with the matters in that way. Therefore, from time to time powers have to be given to the Minister by means of Orders in Council and Regulations for these matters to be carried out.
What we are anxious to know is what limit we can put upon those powers and what new Regulation we can make in order, so to speak, to perfect that system. At the present moment, before a Bill leaves this House it has been the responsibility, the right and the privilege of every hon. Member to take part in the framing of it, and it is an act of all the hon. Members of the House. An Order in Council is an act of the Minister of the time and of the Department of which he is the head. All that we in this House can do about an Order in Council is to express our assent by nodding or our dissent by shaking our heads and saying that we will not agree to it; we have no power to amend an Order in Council or to make new suggestions.
This is, again, a matter that we should examine. I was glad to hear what the
2100
Home Secretary said about not deciding just yet how this should be dealt with, but I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields that it is a matter for this House. It ought to be dealt with by a Select Committee of this House. It may be desirable to have a Select Committee consisting of members of another place as well as Members of the House of Commons, but that remains to be seen. I should prefer that we had our own Select Committee which was confined to this House. I hope this will be dealt with very soon.
The other point I want to put is this. I am assuming that, in spite of anything the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields and I may say, this Motion will go through, and many of the present Regulations will remain Regulations under the Act. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that surely the time has come when we can say which of them ought to be embodied in an Act of Parliament, and if it is necessary for them to be so embodied in permanent form, the sooner we do it the better.
The Home Secretary said that it is very difficult to frame legislation to deal with these matters. If that is so, it seems to me to be the most cogent argument why they should be embodied in a Bill which would be discussed fully by the House before it became the law of the land. The sooner it is dealt with by all parties in the House, because this is a matter that concerns all of us as well as democracy and democratic institutions—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We are all interested in this point and I should like the help of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on it. Let us take the question of the requisition of land. There are some 10 or more Regulations dealing with that subject. I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want that to be covered by permanent legislation. He thinks it should be embodied in an Act which would be renewed annually. Does he think that a Bill putting in statutory form the provisions necessary for the requisitioning of land could be got through this House in a short time? The difficulty is that it would mean a great intrusion into the work of a Session. I am trying to find out what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
Mr. Davies: We are dealing with the private rights of all persons who may

2101
own land, and at some moment some Department of the Government may want to requisition it. It is the duty of this House to see that adequate protection is given to any owner of any piece of land about to be requisitioned. Is not that a matter which should be dealt with by the House as a whole and not merely through the House giving power, as it does under this Act, to some Government Department to make a general requisition when all that we can do then is, when it comes before the House, to express our assent or dissent? I do not think that that is the right way to deal with it.
I have been a long time in this House and I cannot remember a single occasion when a Bill has passed without a Member raising a constituency point on it. This is what usually happens. A Bill is presented to this House after being carefully prepared by the Department which is responsible for its production, and after long consultations with other Departments concerned so that they are satisfied that they have got a complete Bill. I have never known an instance of that without some Member of this House getting up and saying, "Clause 25 in its present form, if passed, will have an adverse effect upon my constituency." That is a matter which has never occurred to the Department concerned or to all the Departments together. That is why it is so important that this matter should be brought before the House so that we can all contribute towards general legislation which affects us all.
That brings me to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On nearly all occasions we can with real sincerity congratulate the Home Secretary upon the manner and the method in which he presents Measures to this House—whether they are Bills or Motions—but quite honestly I cannot do that today, and for this reason. It looked to me as if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not had the time—and here I am not criticising him, for I think he is the most hard-worked member of the Government, and a great deal of our responsibilities are placed upon him—to deal with what the House wanted to know.
This is the true position. Here is an Act of Parliament which, in 20 days' time, will come to an end,
2102
unless this House petitions Her Majesty that it should be continued for another year. Frankly, I have always disliked the Act and so has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party. In opposing this Act in 1947, the Prime Minister, who as Leader of the Opposition spoke immediately before me when he and I both opposed the Bill, said:
"These powers are the negation of British freedom and our way of life in time of peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 1801.]
I need not go through the objections that have been raised on other occasions about this Act. The Labour Government in 1950 submitted a similar Motion to that moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman today. Might I remind the House how very wide are the powers given by this Act to the Government of the day? It is right that we should remind ourselves how this has come into existence. First, when the war broke out the House was asked to give the necessary powers to the central Government, which it has always willingly given in times of war almost without discussion, to do by Order in Council what ordinarily could only be done by legislation. The House surrendered into the hands of the central Government a tremendous power.
The House was always jealous of doing this, and, in effect, it said, "We will do it for the length of the war and for six months afterwards, but not any longer." The Coalition Government came to the conclusion that six months was too short a period, because they could not possibly deal with all the troubles of the aftermath of war in six months. Therefore they proposed that it should be continued for two years.
The Coalition Government and the Caretaker Government went out and the Labour Government came into power. Their first Act was passed in 1945 and was amended by the 1947 Act. It claimed those powers for five years in time of peace—and what is now happening? This Act will continue for the eighth year after the end of the war. What possible justification can there be for taking these enormous powers in time of peace to enable the Government to do by Order in Council what admittedly should be done by Measures brought before this House, on which there would be full debate and the consent of the House?

2103
Let me remind the House what is being asked of us today. Here we are asked to continue an Act for another year so that by Regulation the Government of the day can do anything
"generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used, in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."
Can anything be wider than that? Who is going to determine how the resources can be "best calculated"? The House of Commons will not do it, and it will be "best calculated" by the Government of the day and that, in effect, means that the Government or a Department of it can say, "We know what is best for the community and we will do it by Order in Council." That is tremendous power.
The Government today are asking that this should be continued for another year, although the right hon. Gentleman and his party opposed it in 1950. It was then that I wanted it limited to one year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party were content that it should be limited to two years, but no more. That would have ended it in 1947. It is now 1952. Why do the Government want to continue this Act? We ought to have the most cogent reasons why they want to have it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman read a list of the various Regulations that are partly wanted. If they had not been brought into existence at all, we should not have to ask him whether he was going to use the full power given to him by the Act. He comes to the House and says, "I am not going to use the full power. I am only going to use it partly." Surely it is right to tell the House in detail what that part-use of the Act is to be. We ought to have had that information in our hands for a considerable time so that we might know exactly what it is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have said, "These things are needed, and the reasons we have now to ask the House to continue the Act are the following." It may be that we would not have been able to deal with all of them by permanent Acts of Parliament, but it ought to be the duty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain all of them. Why is it necessary to continue this Act at all?
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the Regulation on
2104
which I interrupted him? I asked whether it was still in existence. I think it is Regulation 58A, dealing with Control of Employment—direction of labour. He and I protested about it time and time again after the war was over until at last the then Minister of Labour came to the House and made the statement that the Government Department concerned did not intend any longer to make any use of it whatsoever. Is that the attitude now of the Government of the day? The country is entitled to know. Do they intend to make any use of it? Do they intend to direct labour during the next 12 months? If not, why do they continue this Regulation at all? Why not take it away altogether, remove it once and for all?
The other Regulation is that to which the right hon. Member for South Shields referred, giving power to thousands of people to enter the houses and lands of private people, and do it merely by walking in. No policeman can enter any house without having a warrant signed by a magistrate. He has a great responsibility, and is given that position because he is a policeman, but he cannot do it without a warrant. He cannot have the warrant unless he has gone before a magistrate and given good reasons why it is necessary.
All these people from various Government Departments can walk into anybody's house without having any warrant at all, except to say, "Here's my authority. That's enough, and I can walk in." Is that the attitude to be adopted by a Conservative Government? I thought, from all the speeches made by the Prime Minister, that the moment his party came into power all these controls and Regulations, which he very rightly said were a negation of British justice and of the British way of life, would go. They ought to go, and for that reason I support the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Shields.
6.24 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: The Government will naturally resist the Amendment, and I should like to try to strengthen their hands in doing so. At the same time, when I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) I felt he was expressing many things on which I agree very strongly. He was true to his Radical

2105
tradition on that issue, and he will have in mind whom he reminded me of when he was speaking in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whom?"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman reminded me of my mother's father, who spoke in the same vein.
I am in some difficulty in knowing how far we can go into the details of various Regulations. The right hon. Member who opened for the Opposition forestalled, as it were, some of his supporters, who have Amendments on the Paper for continuing Regulation 68CA. I want to say a word about that Regulation. I can put the points quite briefly without going into any more detail than did the right hon. Gentleman himself.
If the Regulation is removed it will cause unfairness as between county boroughs and smaller counties to whose housing authorities planning powers are not delegated. That is the main reason I wish to speak about it. The Isle of Ely is in one of the counties which has delegated no planning powers to the housing authorities in the county, and that is causing very considerable concern among those local authorities. As negotiations are going on with the local authorities, I suggest that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should, if he possibly can, enable the smaller authorities to have the final say where there is dispute between planning and housing authorities.
He would thus satisfy a great many authorities who are extremely worried about it now. They have long lists of people waiting for houses, and they are concerned lest they should be overridden by the county planning authorities. If the Minister could arrange for counties where planning authority has not been delegated to have the final say whether or not requisitioned houses should be handed back, he would do much to reassure them, and would avoid aggravating the problem facing the housing authorities. Heaven knows, it is big enough.
Perhaps I may return to a more general issue, the question which I think Disraeli would have described as "domiciliary visiting by officials." I find it very hard to applaud the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment for the Opposition as heartily as I would have done in normal circumstances, because I recollected that some of the arguments which
2106
he put forward when he was a Member of the Government are those which we on this side now put, whereas we were then putting an argument very similar to the one which he used today against the retention of so many officials with power to enter without a warrant.
I suppose that that will always happen until we have wiped away all the powers which were given during the war, or which go with a Socialist State. We shall always have such powers with us if there should be—disastrously enough—a return to Socialism in this country, and we shall have the same thing happening when the Conservatives come back again—exactly the same interchange of argument always coming from the same side of the House.
I feel that all of us do not like, in our heart of hearts, the idea of people being able to come into our homes without very good reason for doing so. All of us are to some extent anarchists. We all have a streak of anarchy in us, in that we do not like to be ordered about by anybody, and the last thing we want to have is the official who enforces the Orders invading our own homes. In fact, some of us might even go so far as wanting to put up notices outside, "Any civil servant found on this land will be shot on sight." That probably would be undemocratic, and criminal also, but nevertheless we can have our thoughts even if under the criminal law we are not allowed to implement them.
Nothing is more distasteful to the vast majority of people than that we should retain any powers of entry without a warrant or without very good cause for those powers. I accept, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that the fact that there has not been more trouble than we have had in the past is very largely due to the care with which those who have had these powers have exercised them. That was a just tribute and ought to be endorsed, but whilst, on the one hand, legislation should be kept to the absolute minimum, what I dislike more than too much legislation is too much delegated legislation. If we can accelerate the process of ridding ourselves of these distasteful Regulations, we shall be doing something which is recovering the freedom of the country.
All legislation should be kept as short as possible and, so far as possible, should

2107
affect only Ministers and civil servants, and the public as little as possible. I believe that if we can control the activities of the Executive and its officers, we can probably benefit the people more than by giving extra powers to the Executive and to its officials. Incidentally, one of the reasons I am introducing a Private Bill is that it only affects Ministers and executives.
We have tended to get into the mood of too much legislation, and therefore I make some qualification to various of the points which have been made by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. We must be very sure that we want any of these things at all, whether in the form of legislation or of Regulation. My feeling is that we might very well go through the list again and make quite sure that we want anything from the Regulations put into legislation at all. We would probably find that we could cut down some of the proposed legislation, and the more we can cut it down the better we in this House can carry on with the job for which this House was designed; that is, to keep a watch on the administration of the Executive. The tragedy today is that all too often we find that, so far from being able to keep a watchful eye on administration, we have to indulge in Committee stages of Bills about whose necessity there is considerable doubt.
I disagree very strongly with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his contention that because a Bill comes from another place, the public interest is less well served. My belief is that we in this House err, if we err in anything, on the side of being too much inclined to indulge in party disputes over matters which should not arouse any party irritations whatever. In another place there tends to be a more dispassionate approach to some of these things, and on issues such as these that is a good thing. I feel no dismay at all that the Bill was started in another place, and that is the main reason why I oppose the Amendment.
Nevertheless, I hope very much that when that Bill comes to us we shall find that it has not been thought necessary to include all the things that it at present contains. Since the war we have got
2108
into a legislating frame of mind, and the sooner we get out of it the better.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. W. J. Field: In supporting the Amendment, I should like to refer to a matter which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) mentioned in his opening remarks, namely, Regulation 68CA, which relates to the conversion of housing accommodation for non-residential purposes. I want to make a few points which occur to local authorities and their associations in their fear that this Regulation is to be revoked.
There is a great deal of disquiet about it, and no doubt hon. Members on both sides have received representations on the matter from their local authorities. The House will recollect that a similar position occurred last year. The records appear to show that the Government came to the House with the intention of revoking this Regulation and that, after listening to the representations that were made from both sides of the House in favour of its retention, they promised to consult the local authority associations. Having done so, they continued the Regulation and it is now still in force.
I cannot see that the position has changed in any way from what it was last year or that the need for the Regulation is today any less than during the last year. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is on the Front Bench, because I should like to refer to an address that I heard his Minister make this year to the annual conference of one of the local government associations, when he expressed a desire on his own behalf for the very fullest co-operation and the maintenance of good relations between his Ministry and the local authorities. The Minister went so far as to say that in many matters of a local character the local authorities were better judges of these affairs than were the central Government.
I am perfectly sure that the Minister was sincere in his remarks. That being so, it seems a shame that in this present instance he neglects the opportunity which is afforded to him of co-operating with the local authorities by allowing the Regulation to continue until the housing emergency has passed or until, as my

2109
right hon. Friend suggested, the Regulation may be embodied in some more permanent form.
I should like briefly to touch upon some of the more important reasons why the Regulation should be continued in force and why, in particular, local authorities think that it is superior to the untested theories held by the Minister that the ends at present achieved by the Regulation can be achieved under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.
The first thing is speed and efficiency. Under Defence Regulation 68CA, an offender can be prosecuted in the magistrates' court, a penalty can be imposed, and the matter can be settled in a comparatively short time, whereas under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, the planning authority has to serve notice upon the offender, and I believe an appeal lies to the magistrates' court, to the quarter sessions and eventually to the Minister.
Of course, the reasons for this difference are not far to seek, because the Regulation and the Town and Country Planning Act look at this problem from totally different approaches. One deals with the housing problem and the other deals with the planning aspect of the problem, and indeed these two problems are often dealt with by two totally different authorities—one, the planning authority, and the other, the housing authority. I know that the Minister says he will make it obligatory for the planning authority to consult the housing authority before it agrees to a change of user of accommodation under the Acts, but it is my submission that this consultation will only increase the difficulties of the local authority; it means that delay will be caused while the planning authority writes to and consults with the second-tier authority. That complication has not existed before.
Again, the interests of planning and housing may clash, and the planning authority may be landed in quite a ridiculous situation. For example, it may have to refuse an owner of property permission to change the use of accommodation from residential to commercial use, despite the fact that the area in which the property is situated is scheduled, under the planning authority's own town plan, for commercial user. The property
2110
owner will then be able to tell the planning authority that in refusing permission it is going against its own town plan.
It seems to me that, while the housing emergency continues in its present form, this aspect of the problem can best be dealt with by the housing authority tackling the job locally and using its judgment, based on local knowledge. Not even in London, where the planning authority is also, exceptionally, a housing authority, does the county council desire a change in the way desired by the Government.
There have been a large number of cases in London where permission has been refused. I believe that in the last 18 months in the Metropolitan London area no fewer than 400 refusals have been made under this Regulation, and when one considers that each refusal of permission to change the user may relate to two, three or four units of accommodation, one sees how much this Regulation safeguards the loss of housing accommodation.
There is another aspect of the problem which is worrying local authorities, and it is that in a number of cases the planning authority has already given permission for a change of user, and the change of user of the accommodation is restrained only by the existence of this Regulation. Once this Regulation disappears, there will be no legal restraint whatsoever to prevent an owner of property from changing the use from residential to commercial. Indeed, I am informed that in a borough next to mine—the Borough of St. Marylebone—there is a block of some 40 to 50 flats which have gradually been emptied over the last year, apparently in anticipation of the revocation of this Regulation; and once this Regulation goes, there will be nothing to prevent the complete loss of this large block of residential accommodation to commercial use.
Lastly, I want to mention another point which I regard as of some importance. Regulation 67CA is well known to property owners and their agents. They are acquainted with its provisions and with the procedure which they have to adopt under it. If this Regulation goes, it may well be that in a large number of cases the property owner will think there is no longer any restraint on the use of property, and this

2111
will lead to an increase in the number of proceedings to be taken. They will have to be taken under the Town and Country Planning Act and, as I have pointed out, the procedure under that Act is very much more complicated and lengthy than it is under this Defence Regulation.
I fully sympathise with the desire of the Government to do away with useless Regulations, but I cannot see that there are any financial or administrative savings to be gained in this instance. Indeed, it is rather the reverse, because it is the view of local authorities up and down the country, irrespective of party, that the revocation of this Regulation will complicate rather than ease their problem. I cannot see why on this occasion the Minister does not listen to the representations which the people upon the spot have made to him.
I have tried to demonstrate to him, and they have put to him, that the revocation of this Regulation will lead to delays, frustrations and unnecessary correspondence between different departments of various local authorities. It must inevitably mean the loss of some housing accommodation in areas where this loss can ill be afforded. This is the view of the local authorities and their associations and, in London, of the County Council.
It is because of these views, expressed by the people who, in the Minister's own words, often know more than he does about their own local problems, that I ask once again that the Government should have another look at this matter so as to see whether, as they did last year, they cannot continue this Regulation in force.
6.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I do not intend to be discourteous to the House in rising at this stage, but I thought it would be convenient for the House if I gave the Government's reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Field), so as to facilitate the discussion.
It is, of course, the desire of my right hon. Friend to have full co-operation with local authority associations, but co-operation does not necessarily mean agreement
2112
on every occasion. On some occasions one local authority association is diametrically opposed to another in what it wants, and my right hon. Friend cannot agree to give consent to both of them. At the same time, I would point out that merely because he has to refuse one local authority association, it does not necessarily mean that he does not want their co-operation.
Mr. Field: But surely there was no disagreement on this occasion.
Mr. Marples: The great thing with local authority associations, rather like business institutions, commercial institutions, Government Departments and local authority departments, is a natural but rather regrettable tendency sometimes to build up largish empires. I am not saying that that is so in this case, but it is something that one has to guard against.
Dr. Barnett Stross: Could the hon. Gentleman give the House this information, which would be very useful: are there an appreciable number of local authorities who have agreed to the revocation of this Regulation?
Mr. Marples: Most of the local authority associations who have the powers want to retain them; most of those who do not have the powers want to get them; and that is nearly always the same with local authority associations.
Mr. Harold Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he is trying to tell the House? Is he now saying that if a local authority approaches the Minister, and begins to negotiate, it means that possibly for that authority this Regulation will not be revoked? Is it to be a kind of bargaining between the authorities and the Minister?
Mr. Marples: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman places that interpretation on it, as it has nothing at all to do with what I said.
The local authority associations sent various points of view, some of which were raised in this House last year. They have been taken into account, and amendments made and procedure adopted to try to meet some of the legitimate points which were raised. I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that it does not necessarily mean that on every occasion

2113
we agree with a local authority, but merely because one does not agree does not denote a desire not to co-operate with them.
Mr. Field: I should like to get this clear. I agree that the Government has the absolute right to act on its own responsibility and to disagree with the local authority associations. The point I should like cleared is what answers were received when he consulted with those local government associations which had been administering the housing side of this problem, and the authority which, in the County of London will now administer the planning aspect of the problem? My information is that the associations of the authorities which administered the housing side, and the London County Council, are against the revocation of this Order.
Mr. Marples: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the explanation of what my right hon. Friend has in mind to meet these points and then perhaps he, or some of his hon. Friends, can raise other points subsequently. But I would like to deploy the idea which my right hon. Friend has in mind.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: I think that the hon. Gentleman owes an explanation to the House, because in his earlier remarks he definitely gave the impression that the local authorities were divided on this issue. Will he tell us, because he owes it to the local authority associations, whether any associations are supporting the revocation of this Regulation, and, if so, which?
Mr. Marples: I was taking up the hon. Gentleman's point, and saying that if we necessarily disagree with the local authority associations—I do not think the hon. Lady was present—
Mrs. Castle: Oh, yes, I was.
Mr. Marples: But not in the seat she is at present occupying, because I should have been attracted by her appearance.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Field) was making the point that if my right hon. Friend wanted to co-operate with the local associations he should meet their point of view. But, if he wishes to co-operate with them, it does not necessarily mean that he is in complete agreement with them. Co-operation is one thing and complete
2114
agreement is another. So far I have not referred to this Defence Regulation.
Mr. Michael Stewart: May I interrupt the hon. Member? This is a point of great interest. I think it true to say that the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps inadvertently, created the impression that there was disagreement among local authorities in this matter. That is the only point we wish cleared up. If there are any associations of local authorities who support the revocation of this Order would he, just in order to clear away any misunderstanding, tell us who they are?
Mr. Marples: The whole of the local authority associations in this instance were consulted, but my remarks were general—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because the hon. Member for Paddington, North, said that at one of the annual conferences of one of the local government associations my right hon. Friend indicated an intention and a desire to co-operate with the local authority associations. I reiterate that desire of my right hon. Friend. Between us we have, I think, addressed all the annual conventions of the local authority associations.
In this case, my right hon. Friend has met all the local authority associations concerned with housing and he has taken into account all the points they made. If the House will permit me to give the explanation of what my right hon. Friend has in mind, hon. Members will see how he tried to meet the legitimate fears expressed when those meetings took place.
Mr. Stewart: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I did put a plain question to the hon. Gentleman. I am simply asking him whether he is suggesting that there are any associations of local authorities who want this Order revoked? Does he make that suggestion? If not, let him say so. If he does, what are the associations?
Mr. Marples: I am going on to deal with the points raised but I want hon. Gentlemen to get this clear. I was dealing with the general issue of the desire of my right hon. Friend to co-operate with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I will now go on to bring out the various

2115
points raised by these associations, and how my right hon. Friend tried to deal with them.
The Regulation we are now proposing to revoke provides that, except with the consent of the housing authority, accommodation, which has been used for residential purposes at any time since 31st December, 1938, shall not be used for other purposes. Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the housing authority to grant its consent may appeal to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
That is the Regulation. Twelve months ago it was decided that these emergency powers should be dropped as early as possible; more particularly because work done by the Regulation could, since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which came into force in 1948, equally well be done in the normal course of planning control—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I will explain that a little later.
The decision to drop this power was criticised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and several of his hon. Friends. At that time the Government had been in office for only a short time and my right hon. Friend agreed to consult again with the local authority associations. As a result of that—
Mr. James MacColl: May I—
Mr. Marples: It would assist me if I could finish this explanation. I have given way a great deal, and if the House wishes me to give a coherent reply it is not unreasonable I think for me to ask for a fair chance to reply.
Mr. MacColl: What we want is an accurate reply.
Mr. Marples: The objections of the local authority associations were concentrated into three main points. They said that on legal grounds planning powers could not do the job of conserving housing accommodation. That was the first point. They said it could not be done under the Town and Country Planning Act. Second, they said that enforcement procedure is very much slower under the Town and Country Planning Act than under the Defence Regulation, a point which was made by the hon. Member
2116
for Paddington, North and with which I will deal. The third point was that the revocation of the Defence Regulation involves the loss of responsibility by the housing authorities to have intimate knowledge of local conditions. Those are the three main objections which the local authority associations raised and which hon. Members opposite have in mind. Perhaps I might deal with them in that order.
The first argument was that under Section 14 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, a planning authority in dealing with an application for permission
"shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material thereto, and to any other material considerations."
The argument of the local authorities is that, "other material considerations" must be planning considerations, and that purely housing considerations could not come within that definition.
My right hon. Friend is advised that this contention is misconceived. All demands on land use, of which the provision of housing accommodation is one, must be "material considerations" even where an authority's development plan shows an area is intended, say, for commercial use, and they have every intention ultimately of allowing commercial uses throughout the area, there is nothing to stop them refusing permission for the time being, on grounds of housing shortage, for the conversion of a house into an office. That meets one of the first points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MacColl: That will be tested in the courts.
Mr. Marples: Such a refusal does not prejudice the consideration by the authority of a repeated application when circumstances have changed. The associations accept the proposition that in certain circumstances it is open to authorities to grant temporary permissions for the continuation of uses which are out of accord with the development plan, and they frequently grant such temporary permissions. There is, equally, no reason why they should not give "temporary refusals" for a change of use which would be in accordance with the plan. That deals with that point, and all the advice received is to that effect. Also, paragraph 2 of

2117
the draft circular which my right hon. Friend intends to send out, states:
"The Minister wishes to make it clear that under the Act the planning authority, having had regard to all the material considerations, may refuse permission for development notwithstanding that the development would be in accord with their development plan."
My right hon. Friend intends to tell local authorities that that is the legal position. That deals with the first point.
The second point is that the enforcement procedure under Section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act is slow. This is a point of real substance. It is, at any rate, slower than the Defence Regulation. Whether it is slow by itself or not is another matter. It must be remembered that this House when it passed that Section in 1947 intended that there should be certain safeguards for a person who has been refused permission. This House thought it right and proper that Section 23 should be worded in this way.
When hon. Members say that it is not adequate they are really saying that the Section which was passed by the then Socialist Government is not adequate. Personally, I think that it is. The enforcement procedure involves the service of a notice on the owner and occupier of land on which contravening development has taken place, requiring that the use be discontinued. The notice does not take effect until at least 28 days after service. Application can be made within that time for permission to continue the development. If this is refused appeal can be made to the Minister or, alternatively, application can be made to the courts to determine that permission was not required. While these issues are being settled the notice is stayed.
Anyone breaking the Defence Regulation can be brought before the magistrates. That is a procedure which is always more speedy. But is it fair? There is a lot to be said for the slower procedure, decided upon in 1947, under which a man has an opportunity to put himself right with the law before criminal proceedings are taken against him under what were strictly emergency powers.
The argument can apply only to a small number of cases. We have made careful research and we have found that most people seek permission before making a
2118
change, and the few who do not make an error merely because of ignorance of the law and not from a desire to disobey. The planning procedure gives such people a chance to put things right. Under the Defence Regulation they have no chance to do that. They are prosecuted straightaway. I am not sure that the House would like that state of affairs to continue indefinitely. That deals with the second point. I do not think that what has been suggested gives a man justice at a time like this. I suggest that we can use Section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act in such a way as to make administration reasonably certain and efficient.
The third question is that the revocation of the Defence Regulation involves a loss of responsibility by the housing authorities who have intimate knowledge of local conditions. This really hurts some of the local authorities. They see some of their powers being taken away from them. My right hon. Friend has assured the associations that there is no intention of changing policy, housing need being still acute, and that when the change in formal responsibility which we are now suggesting takes place the county councils will be told to consult housing authorities in cases where a change of use from residential accommodation is involved and to give the fullest weight to housing need.
To make this doubly sure it is proposed to make an amendment to the General Development Order under the Town and Country Planning Act requiring that local planning authorities shall consult the housing authority on any proposal which involves the loss of housing accommodation, and also to arrange for reference to the Minister of cases where there is disagreement between authorities.
Again, I wish to quote from the draft circular which my right hon. Friend has in mind to make sure that the smaller authorities cannot be overriden on any question of housing if they want to retain it for housing purposes. Paragraph 3 says:
"In order to ensure that the views of housing authorities are fully known to local planning authorities before decisions are taken on applications to change the use of housing accommodation"—

2119
this is only from housing accommodation to something else, and not the other way round—
"the Minister intends in due course to provide in the General Development Order for consultation by the planning authority with the housing authority where the planning authority propose to grant permission."
Meantime, he expects this consultation to take place as a matter of course, and he hopes that in the event of a difference of opinion over a substantial amount of housing accommodation the planning authority will bring the matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend or his regional officer. The fears of hon. Gentlemen can be allayed. There is no intention of overriding the small local authority.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) quoted an instance in his constituency where of 23 cases 16 were refused. This would not matter a great deal. I think that South Shields is a county borough. In that case it would be its own planning authority. It can still make the same decisions next year, if this procedure is adopted, as it made last year. Therefore, the position of South Shields will not have been worsened if this suggestion is approved.
There is one consideration which ought to be borne in mind. That is the amount of delegation and decentralisation that takes place. If we take the Lancashire County Council as an example, there are 121 local authorities, and planning powers have been delegated to 109. The remaining 12 local authorities are in thinly populated areas and they have what is known as a sub area planning committee. That is really decentralisation, not delegation, so they have a fair chance to express their views.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much delegation there is? Most authorities have some delegated power, but some have more than others.
Mr. Marples: The powers delegated by the county council would not include delegation of the plans for the whole county, but only of the area of the local authority concerned.
The authorities most severely affected by the disappearance of the Defence Regulation are the Metropolitan borough councils since they do not exercise delegated
2120
planning powers from the London County Council. But the proposed provision that the local planning authority must consult them before agreeing to any change of use which would involve loss of housing accommodation, and must refer any disputed case to the Minister, will bring them back into the picture. This proposal will dispense with a war-time emergency Regulation which is not a very desirable feature of life in time of peace.
Hon. Gentlemen may say, "This is all very well in theory. Will it work in practice?" Perhaps that will exercise their minds more than anything else. This morning I found that in Scotland Defence Regulation 68CA was wiped out on 10th December, 1950. The note I have is:
"We have had no trouble at all and no representations. Things have worked out quite all right without it."
That is the exact message I received. My right hon. Friend has consulted the local authority associations and, taking into account what they have said, he has tried to meet them as fairly as possible and to safeguard housing accommodation. In Scotland, the system has worked extremely well in practice.
Mr. Pargiter: May I ask the Minister to explain how this point will be covered? In very many cases, planning permission will have been given for the altered use, but a refusal may have been given under the Regulations; in other words, the authority may think, very properly, that ultimately the proposal will be all right and that they would approve it, but, at the moment, they would withhold their permission under the Regulations.
It seems to me that the abolition of this Regulation will mean that the person who will be entitled to proceed under the planning permission which the authority have already given could, subsequently, be prevented from doing so by another resolution of the planning committee, which might revoke the permission they had given, so that the person concerned would be entitled to claim compensation for the revocation of his planning permission.
Mr. Marples: I do not know how many cases there will be like that, but it is an extremely good point, and I would like to have the opportunity to look into it.
Mrs. Castle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? He has told us that his right hon. Friend consulted the local authority associations as to the proposals which he now puts forward? Will he assure the House that they are 100 per cent. satisfied?
Hon. Members: They are not.
Mr. Marples: The hon. Lady knows very well that they are not 100 per cent. satisfied, but the legitimate points which they put forward have been met by my right hon. Friend.
7.12 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: I intervene in this debate in the interests of my constituency, and, in particular, of two urban districts contained in it, where there is very grave fear as to the effect of the proposed revocation of Regulation 68CA, and I want to voice the local authorities' apprehensions about this situation.
They are not satisfied that the proposed amendment which the Minister has brought forward will give satisfaction, on account of the slowness of the procedure, as compared with the direct way in which they themselves can deal with the housing situation. The members of my local authorities stand for the liberty of the subject just as much as anyone else, but at the moment they are exercised in their minds by the situation in their own area, where housing, to the members of an urban authority, is a huge problem, because the applicants for houses are on the doorsteps of the councillors practically every week. They have been hoping that some legislation would be passed that would help them to deal with their housing situation, and they are constantly reminded of the fact that people are living three, four or five in a room. These questions are exercising the minds of the local councillors.
In the urban district of Ashington, which is probably the largest mining community in the United Kingdom, land is the first consideration, because, on account of railway sidings and colliery workings, we have got to count every available bit of land as being most precious. As a matter of fact the district is almost completely built up, and therefore anything that would revoke this Regulation and place in jeopardy the local
2122
authority's powers of control and allow anyone to change houses into business premises, is a matter which causes them very great concern.
The local authority take the view that this procedure will be too slow. We all know that there is not always great harmony between housing and planning. I am inclined to think, from one particular instance which I have in mind, that the planning people think they are very superior when it comes to laying out an area. It is true that they have some great ideas, some of which I support myself, but we must remember that they also make mistakes.
Therefore, my local authorities are not satisfied, having seen the new proposals, that they will give them the necessary security in looking after the interests of their people, as they are able to do at the moment. Therefore, they are asking—and I am putting forward their plea—that this Regulation be extended for at least another 12 months.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I will detain the House for only a moment or two. We on this side are always glad to support the repeal of any Regulation which forms part of what we regard as unnecessary controls, but I agree that there is some force in the point which has been made on the question whether this is the best procedure to adopt for this particular matter of change of user.
This is a matter which has occupied the House a good deal this afternoon. I think it might well prove that the use of the planning authority by way of enforcing control may not be fully effective. Under the present procedure, those who want to ensure that there is no change of user have a very useful weapon ready at hand, in that they can lay an information against the person concerned and the matter becomes immediately effective. The procedure of using the planning authority must involve quite considerable delay, and it also provides various loopholes to the offender, who may use various procedures by which he may be able to defeat the ends of the planning authority.
I think that the best way out of this difficulty would be for the Home Secretary to adhere to the original plan, but at the same time to see whether he could

2123
not introduce some Measure which would ensure that the procedure can be put into effect a good deal more rapidly than under the planning authority.
I should like also to know what is to happen about those cases in which, up to the present, the planning authority has dealt with the matter on the assumption that the housing aspect of it will be dealt with by the housing authority. It may well be that people have got past the planning authority in the belief that the housing authority will prevent any change of user, while now that person would be able to complete the procedure, although the housing authority may not wish it to go through.
I have this problem in my own constituency. As a non-county borough, the local authority have delegated powers, and there is a pending case at the moment of a man who has completely defied the authorities. What is to happen in such cases? Once this Regulation is revoked, it becomes impossible to enforce the intention, which was to prevent a change of use. Although I approve of the idea of repealing the powers of the housing authorities, I think the planning authorities ought to be given the powers of enforcement which the housing authorities have at present.
There is only one other matter with which I want to deal, and it may save the time of the House if I deal with it now, instead of later. We are considering generally whether this is the right moment to continue in force not only Regulation 68CA, about which we have been speaking, but others covered by the Supplies and Services Act, including Regulation 51, which relates to the requisitioning of land. I find it difficult for any Minister to justify the requisitioning of another person's land in peace-time unless there are very strong reasons for so doing. I cannot help feeling that in this matter the Minister of Agriculture is not being so effective in reducing controls as other Ministers are trying to be.
The present Government have quite rightly—as they promised to do—gone through the controls which affect the country at the moment and have done their best to eliminate any which may be considered unnecessary; but I cannot refrain from being critical in this matter
2124
of the Minister of Agriculture, who I do not believe has been as enthusiastic in reducing controls as have other Ministers.
Again I speak of a particular case, of a plot of land which is under requisition as an allotment. The true owner is perfectly prepared to go on cultivating it as an allotment, and therefore there can be no national interest concerned at all. It does not matter whether Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones grows the vegetables on the allotment. In those circumstances I think it wrong that the Ministry should hold a plot of land under requisition against the true owner.
This is a substantive case which I have taken up with the Minister of Agriculture, but he insists that the land should remain under requisition. I think it is an indefensible decision. Where the equities of the case are equal and where it does not matter in the least whether the cultivation is done by the occupier or by the true owner, then I think the true owner ought to have the right to cultivate his own land if he so desires. That ought to be a matter of principle.
I hope that the few words which I have said on the subject will have the effect of stirring the Minister of Agriculture in this and cognate matters, and that he will recognise that there is a responsibility on him to go through his controls as closely as he can to see that none that is unnecessary is retained.
Mr. Paget: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that, generally speaking, he is opposed to security of agricultural tenancies?
Mr. Marlowe: No. I did not bother to explain the matter at length, and I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have understood. Regulation 51 gives power for the requisitioning of land. Having requisitioned it, the local authority—who have the delegated powers from the Minister—can put in anybody they like to carry on its cultivation. All I say is that if the person they choose and the true owner can cultivate the land with equal success, then the true owner ought to have the opportunity of doing so if he wishes.
Mr. Paget: The sitting tenant?
Mr. Marlowe: No, requisitioned land.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Williams: As the House may know, my constituency of Droylsden is composed exclusively of four urban district councils even though we bear the designation of a borough division. Since I have had the honour to represent that division, I have never known a subject on which there has been so much unanimity between the respective urban district councils as there has been on this subject.
They have informed me of the negotiations and discussions going on between the Minister and the association representing urban district councils, and even after considering the revised ideas now put forward to the association they are still of the opinion that there is a very great weakness in the position so far as urban district councils are concerned.
The whole of my area covered by the four urban district councils is highly industrialised, and will continue to be shown as such under the development plan. It is a congested area. I gather from what the Parliamentary Secretary said—I am not quite sure that I got his figures right in regard to Lancashire, because we come under that county council—that by far the larger number of authorities are given delegated powers to do certain things, but that a few sparsely populated areas in Lancashire have not got those powers. So far as I know, the four urban district councils about which I am talking have not got those wide powers, and if the Parliamentary Secretary regards them as sparsely populated areas he is making a big mistake, because they are densely populated areas.
Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the four urban district councils in his division have no delegated powers whatever from the planning authority?
Mr. Williams: No, I am not saying that. What I was trying to gather from the hon. Gentleman was whether an area such as ours would be included in the list of exceptions to which he referred.
I was saying that ours is a congested area. In addition, the prospects of extending the boundaries of the urban district councils are not at all good, with the result that we shall have to try and cover the housing requirements of the
2126
four councils by ensuring that every piece of land and every house and other building that can be made available for housing purposes is retained.
The opinion of the four councils is that unless the consent of the local authority is going to be essential, as I understand it was under the old conditions, they are going to be up against great difficulties regarding the housing of the people in the area. There is a long waiting list, and every house is of great importance. Even if only one or two houses are allowed to be converted or to be used for any other purpose than for domestic housing purposes, it is going to impose a hardship in an area such as this.
The councils have asked me to oppose as strongly as possible any suggestion of departing from the provisions of Regulation 68CA at the present time. I sincerely hope that, having regard to the urgency of the problem of housing in areas such as mine, the House will at least agree to retain the Regulation for another 12 months. During that period it might be possible for the local association, in conjunction with the Minister, to consider further what ways and means can be agreed upon to obviate the need for this. But I feel quite certain—and this is the view of the people I represent—that we should not revoke this Regulation until we are perfectly satisfied that no injustice or hardship will occur in areas like my own by so doing.
7.29 p.m.
Sir Robert Grimston: I am one of those who, in principle, strongly support the removal of all Regulations which it is possible to remove. But in this particular case I think there is a misgiving, not entirely confined to one side of the House, as to whether this is an opportune moment to remove from the local authorities the power contained in this particular Regulation.
I want to be quite clear as to the Parliamentary position at the present moment. As I understand it, we are not by this humble Address revoking the Regulation, and at the conclusion of this debate, if the House passes this Address, the Regulation will not be revoked thereby, but has to be revoked by Order which at a later stage can be prayed against. That, as I understand it, is the position.

2127
In the light of the discussion we have had on the subject, I would suggest to the Minister that there are very genuine fears that the proposals he has made will not meet the case, although for my part I must say that I think he has gone a very long way to meet the local authority associations. But they do not think so. In the light of this debate, which the Minister will have an opportunity, of course, of studying in more detail later, he will be able to look at the matter again. I suggest it is not finally disposed of tonight, and that perhaps he could give an undertaking or an indication that before the Order is made revoking this particular Regulation he will see if it is possible, particularly in the light of what has been said tonight, to do anything to remove the fears which the local authorities have.
That, I believe, is the Parliamentary position. That is the suggestion I would make, to try to reach a solution which is agreeable to all parties. But I certainly adhere to the view that, if it can possibly be done, every Regulation, and particularly Defence Regulations, should be removed. In this particular case it does seem that it is an advantage to the public that they should have to go to only one authority to make applications for a change of user. I am sure it would be a matter of convenience to the public. I hope that, under the Parliamentary position which I have indicated, the Government will take the opportunity of having a look at the matter again.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. G. Lindgren: While I would not contradict the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) with regard to the Parliamentary position I suggest that unless this provision is retained it automatically expires at the end of this year.
Let us admit straight away that, if the situation and conditions were ideal, the suggestion put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the planning decision should be the decision, would be the ideal one. If we could have one general set of rules and Regulations covering that, that would be the ideal situation. However, we are not in those conditions, and, as the Minister has himself admitted, the primary consideration is the housing
2128
consideration. His circular and development order are admissions of that.
The weakness of the Parliamentary Secretary's case is this. He quite rightly says that within the 1947 Act there are opportunities for the delegation of powers, and that many authorities have taken the opportunity to delegate powers. He quotes Lancashire, which is, perhaps, one of the best of the authorities in its conception of what delegation means, and it has, to a greater extent than many other planning authorities, delegated to local authorities within its area.
But I would put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in so far as very many planning authorities are concerned, the powers of delegation are non-existent. There are many counties which have given practically nothing whatever to the authorities within their areas. If it is admitted, as it is admitted by the Minister's circular to the planning authorities, that the primary consideration is housing, then why not maintain for the housing authorities the power to have control over the change of use in their areas, as they have at the present time?
After all, this is a Regulation which was created for the purpose of dealing with the housing accommodation in a period of housing shortage, and that general situation still exists. Therefore, this provision should be maintained. It is equally true, I think it is only fair to say, that while the Minister has discussed with the local authorities the problem, he is far from having satisfied the minor authorities in regard to the position at the present time.
Following on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams), I would mention the Urban District Councils' Association. Many hon. Members will have received in the last week telegrams from the local authorities in their areas, and since the discussions took place with the Minister they will have received from many of these local authorities confirming letters about their disappointment at the result of the negotiations that took place.
I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in so far as this Regulation is concerned, the primary decision should be that of planning and of a single authority on a single application; a single

2129
decision is one that ought to be maintained in the present housing situation, with the emphasis that the Minister has given to the point that the local authorities should handle the situation.
This Regulation, which empowers housing authorities to maintain such housing accommodation as exists within their areas, should be maintained. If it is removed, then it will lead to trouble, for while it is true that in some counties there is close co-operation between the county councils and the local authorities, there are very many other counties where that close association, with mutual respect and happy, harmonious working, does not exist. Indeed, even between a county authority and a local housing authority the importance of a particular item may be a cause of considerable difference of opinion.
Where there is that difference of opinion there is bound to be a conflict, even in those areas where the relationships are of the best. I would suggest, therefore, that the far better way for the time being is this arrangement, for a further year; to maintain this Regulation in order that the housing authorities themselves may be the authorities with responsibility for the housing of the people within their areas, and have control over the housing accommodation within their areas.
7.37 p.m.
Mt. Frederick Elwyn Jones: This is the second occasion upon which the present Government have come to the House to seek the renewal of powers given to the Government under emergency legislation substantially to interfere with, and, indeed, to control the economic life of this nation. We expected, after the Election speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to have had a kind of legislative Guy Fawkes day when we came back—a bonfire of controls; but the hard facts of economic reality overtook the conspirators, and they come again before us for a second time to seek the renewal of these emergency powers.
The view that is taken of these emergency powers and these controls on this side of the House is this. Where they are not socially and economically necessary, of course they should be abolished. We do not want controls for their own sake, and, indeed, in the matter of controls affecting the classic liberties of the
2130
subject we on this side of the House were most enthusiastic in terminating as soon as possible any controls of that kind, and we did so when we came into office in 1945. But we still say that so long as any of these Regulations remain necessary for the well-being of our people and of the nation then they should remain in force until some substitution for them in the way of Parliamentary legislation is introduced, be it in permanent form or in annual form.
It is, indeed, most disappointing to find tonight, on the second occasion when we go through this Parliamentary exercise, that the Government, who undertook a year ago to introduce permanent Measures of legislation in place of the Regulations, have wholly failed to carry out that intention—if not that undertaking. The Home Secretary says it is because of the nature of these controls, that the problems of law that they give rise to are very complicated, and it would take a good deal of Parliamentary time to pass the Measures through. I certainly will not seek to underestimate that difficulty. But they would be substantially non-controversial. They would go through this House far more quickly than, for instance, that miserable Measure for interference with the transport arrangements of the country. They would go through the House far more quickly than the proposals for the great iron and steel industry and, if I may say so, they would do much more good to our community.
Therefore, I do not accept the excuse—because it cannot be an explanation—that the reason why we are in this chaotic condition tonight in considering these emergency Regulations is due to lack of Parliamentary time. We on this side promise the utmost good will to the Government in carrying out useful measures for the benefit of our community, but we will oppose them in measures which we think are wrong.
At the beginning of this debate we were confronted with a remarkable situation which has put many of us in difficulty in following the course of the debate, because it was disclosed by the Home Secretary, with regard to the powers which Her Majesty's Government propose to continue to exercise, and which are set out, in so far as they are powers under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, in the White Paper, that

2131
there are to be substantial Amendments to specific regulations which are to remain in force, and that in the White Paper we are not fully and properly informed as to what the Government have in mind.
There is in the White Paper only a most innocent and guileless reference to this fact on page 3, where it is stated:
"The final result is that the continuation of the Supplies and Services Act will keep in force the following Regulations (some of which however, it is proposed to revoke in part)."
That does not seem to be very substantial, but when we heard the Home Secretary it appeared that there is to be a substantial alteration in some of these Regulations, and in one or two respects, I submit, an alteration which greatly reduces the capacity and power of the Government to make good use of these emergency powers for the benefit of the nation.
There were two matters to which the Home Secretary referred which interested me greatly as one who, from time to time, has the responsibility of participating in criminal proceedings, be it for the prosecution or for the defence. They illustrate the way in which, by a kind of side-wind, the Government are introducing fundamental changes in the law—and we had no forewarning of them before this debate began. I refer to the proposal to amend Regulation 90 and Regulation 55 of the Defence Regulations.
It is true that the Home Secretary, most obligingly, did seek to specify numerically the Regulations which are to be partially revoked. But, if I may say so, he did it at a speed at which it was difficult, for me at any rate, to follow; and he did it in a way which still leaves me in some anxiety that I may have missed something of fundamental importance. However, I did note these two proposals with regard to Regulation 90 and Regulation 55, which are perhaps worth mentioning to show the significance of what is being done through the back door, and without the matter coming fully before the House.
First, it is proposed under Regulation 90 to delete the words:
"or does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence."
I do not think that I would quarrel very greatly with the omission of those words. They added to the criminal law relating
2132
to attempts to commit an offence, a conception which many of us in the criminal courts always had great difficulty in interpreting, and great difficulty in seeking to justify, particularly when appearing for the prosecution. Nevertheless, what is proposed alters a bit of the criminal law which we have been enforcing in this country now for about 13 years, and it is done without notice or warning to the House, and with the House only being informed about it by the information being extracted from the Home Secretary by hon. Members on this side of the House.
When I turn to the other amendment in the law it seems to me to be of considerable importance, and it may, indeed, weaken the hands of the Government in dealing with serious offences against the Regulations. I must say that I am surprised that it has not been thought fit to draw attention to the significance and importance of what is proposed. The Home Secretary has indicated that under Regulation 55 it is proposed to do away with the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to require, in certain cases, that proceedings in regard to offences under the Regulations shall be tried by way of indictment and shall not be dealt with summarily before the magistrates.
What I want to know from the Government is: Why have they seen fit to deprive the Executive of this important power? What is the reason for it? Is the reason that a less serious view is now to be taken of breaches of these Regulations? Is the reason that the black market is no longer quite so heinous as it was? Is the reason that serious infringements of building regulations are now regarded as rather less anti-social than we have hitherto considered them to be?
Is the reason that the cornering of food is considered less heinous than it hitherto was, because gradually the Government are introducing rationing by the purse in place of rationing through the Ministry of Food? Is that the kind of motivation of this decision to deprive the Director of Public Prosecutions of this power?
It is unfortunate that we have not the advantage of the presence of one of the Law Officers here tonight, because this matter concerns the powers of the Attorney-General, and I should be most

2133
interested to hear from the Attorney-General himself, in whom the ultimate decision on these matters rests, whether he approves of this important power being taken away from him. Since the war there has been a number of very important and very substantial cases concerned with breaches of Defence Regulations, some of which have resulted in Her Majesty's judges imposing long terms of imprisonment upon the offenders. These are not trifling matters with which we are here concerned. They are criminal, in some cases, to a high degree.
What is proposed, as I understand, is to prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions from being able to say, "No, I do not want this particular offence to be dealt with summarily by the magistrates." The precise provision is at page 31—for those who have the benefit of a copy of the Regulations—and is in these terms:
"Where proceedings for any such offence as is mentioned in paragraph (1D) of this Regulation are being carried on before a court of summary jurisdiction"—
then the court—
"shall not deal with the case summarily if it is certified by the competent authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the case may be, that there are circumstances which make it undesirable that the case should be dealt with summarily."
That power is now to be taken away.
Now, there are circumstances which from time to time, make it undesirable that a case should be dealt with summarily. It is a little delicate to indicate what they are, but I can recollect one or two food prosecutions in certain areas where the composition of the bench might—if I may put it as delicately as I can—have put difficulties in the way of justice being done. In cases of that kind it is most desirable that the Director of Public Prosecution should have the power to say, "No; this is a delicate matter for the local bench to deal with. It should be dealt with by way of indictment and go to judge and jury." I want to know the reasons for this quite important changes in the powers which are given to the Government under this Regulation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government seems to take the view that in this day and age it is rather hard on an offender against the provisions of Regulation
2134
68CA that he might be brought before a criminal court. Let us see what the Regulation says:
"No person shall except with the consent of the local housing authority use for purposes other than residential purposes any housing accommodation which has been used for residential purposes at any time since the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight."
Is it really so hard that, today, in a serious case where, without consent, housing accommodation is converted into business accommodation the person responsible should be punished?
I confess that I speak with a little feeling about this matter, representing, as I do, a blitzed area, one of the worst hit in the country. In my submission, a person who owns a house and who, these days, for the purpose of profit, and without consent, turns it into a shop or business premises, is acting in a way which is deserving of punishment. The Parliamentary Secretary speaks as if every technical breach of this Regulation would result in proceedings being taken; but that is not the case.
There is an inherent discretion in the authorities with regard to the institution of a prosecution against a breach of this Regulation. That discretion rests at its highest level in the State in the hands of the Attorney-General—and if it is not thought to be expedient in the interests of justice that a prosecution should be brought—perhaps because of its triviality or of circumstances which indicate that the conduct of the offender was bona-fide—no prosecution is, in fact, likely to be brought.
The authorities who are responsible for prosecutions under these Regulations are neither so inhuman nor so basically unjust as to seize upon every single technical breach for the pleasure of instituting a prosecution. Fortunately, this country is not run on those lines. Therefore, Regulation 68CA, which at present provides for the prospect of punishment in a criminal court for the offender, provides a quick and ready sanction which is still required in these days of continuing and bitter housing shortage. It is wrong that this little piece of armour from the armoury of the law should be removed without justification.
The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that all the advice he had received was to the effect that the powers given to plan-

2135
ning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Acts were sufficient to deal with this mischief of converting housing accommodation into business accommodation. All I can say is that the local authority in West Ham are very strongly opposed to what he proposes and I give vent to their opposition here.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he had consulted a number of local authority organisations and local authorities. Was there a single blitzed area authority which supported this proposal to withdraw Regulation 68CA? Was there a single local authority, exercising the powers of a housing authority, which supported the measure which he proposes? I should like to know. This question was put to the Parliamentary Secretary two or three times by my hon. Friends, but for some reason he did not answer it and I give him an opportunity to answer it now. Did a single local authority, exercising the powers of a housing authority, indicate their approval to the withdrawal of Regulation 68CA? I will sit down and give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am not trying to engage in an old Parliamentary trick. This is a serious matter.
I am sure that he did not consciously seek to mislead the House with what he may have meant merely as badinage, but he gave the impression that there was a difference of opinion among local authorities about this matter. I understand from his silence that there is no difference of opinion and that the objection of the local authorities concerned with this Regulation is universal.
What is the purpose of his proposal? Is it calculated to increase confidence between local authorities and Parliament and the Government? Is it calculated to give greater confidence to those who are desperately awaiting for a house that this Government really means to look after their interests? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have put forward, with considerable force, reasons in law why local authorities such as West Ham believe that the simple procedure which is available under Regulation 68CA is far more effective in countering the mischief of houses being turned into shops and offices than any provisions under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
2136
I do not think I need elaborate that point. This is a flagrant misuse of the opportunity which is now open to the Government to sweep away useless Regulations, but to retain those which are socially useful and put them into proper legislative shape. Here we have a classic illustration of the Government retaining powers of general control, yet when it comes to a practical case where there is an existing Regulation which serves a socially useful purpose all they propose to do with it is to throw it through the window and leave nothing in its place.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. David Weitzman: I hope that the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to the pleas made from both sides of the House with regard to the revocation of Regulation 68CA. From the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary and from what has just been said, it is perfectly clear that not a single local authority charged with the matter of housing has agreed to the revocation of this Regulation. I am certain the Parliamentary Secretary would have risen and made it clear in no uncertain way if there had been any local authority of any importance which had supported the revocation of this Regulation.
I should be lacking in support of my constituents, who are very much affected by this matter, if I did not join in the voluble appeals against the suggestion which has been made. In the case of the two boroughs I have the honour to represent—Hackney and Stoke Newington—considerable use has been made of this power and they feel a great deal of dread at the thought that this weapon is being taken away from them. They have made use of it in the past and hope to use it in the future. Surely there is such an obvious necessity to use everything that can possibly help relating to housing that it is wrong in this case to take away this power.
I gather that the sole justification for removing it is that use is to be made of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. But to any practising lawyer who is familiar with the provisions of the Act it is sheer unadulterated nonsense for anyone to say that there is the same effect under the Act as under the Regulation. The Act was passed for an entirely different

2137
reason; it is permanent legislation dealing with planning. The Regulation deals with an emergency and a necessity which exist today. If it were true that the powers in the Act could be used in much the same way, why was it necessary to retain the Regulation during the period in which the provisions of the Act have applied? The fact that nobody has suggested that before shows how ridiculous the suggestion is.
We have had practical examples of the stupidity of suggesting that these provisions could be applied. Under the Act we have questions of user, permission, planning authority, development plan and many other considerations which do not arise in this case. One matter which has been mentioned is the slowness of dealing with matters under the Act. Given a case under the Act, an astute lawyer can spin out proceedings for many months and perhaps for even a year. There is an enforcement order, an enforcement notice, the appeal to the police court and the appeal to quarter sessions, and, after that, representations may be made to the Minister. By means of these steps, delay may continue for months. Yet under the very short Regulation we have the effective method of going to the police court and punishing the offender.
The Government ought not to withdraw a Measure of this character. If the Government have any real regard to the housing situation, they will ensure that the local authorities retain in their possession this weapon, which has been very useful in the past and will be useful in future.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) dealing with the procedure adopted by the Government in this matter. It must be agreed that the speeches which we have heard during the debate lend force to the argument of my right hon. Friend who urged that the Bill which is in progress through another place ought to have been introduced in this House and should have been cleared before this matter came before us.
It has been said that measures of this character ought to be considered for
2138
permanent legislation. If it is felt desirable that this and other measures should be retained, consideration ought to have been given to their inclusion in permanent legislation. My hon. Friends and I are concerned about why the Government have taken the rather peculiar, and almost the highly unusual, course of introducing a proposal of some constitutional importance in another place before it has come to the House of Commons.
The Home Secretary was asked if he would give some undertaking even at this stage that the Bill now in another place would be brought to this House in time for it to be given some consideration before we finally part with the matters we are now considering. It seems to us to be putting the cart before the horse to be discussing measures for temporary extension now while proposals for permanent retention will come before us a month or more later. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have reinforced the validity of that argument.
As might well have been expected, there has been much reference to what I might almost call the notorious Regulation 68CA. I ought to declare a personal interest here. I raised this matter a year ago, and if I had not done so probably it would not have been before us today. The peculiar thing at that time was that the Government had proposed to let the Regulation drop without consulting the local authorities at all, and it was only when the matter was raised in the House that any steps were taken. At that time the Government thought it was of little importance and had not in the Chamber a Minister who could deal with the matter. The Government have certainly done much better for us today.
The Parliamentary Secretary has done his best to put the case for the abolition of the Regulation. The Government have certainly consulted the local authorities and made up for their omission in that respect last time. However, it is evident that all the local authorities—not just one section of them, as he rather gave us to understand; it is the whole boiling, and it must be a rare occasion when we get so much unanimity in the local authority field—have rejected the proposals which the Parliamentary Secretary put forward, unanimously regarding them as unsatisfactory.

2139
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been bombarded with telegrams and letters expressing the dissatisfaction, not only of the small authorities, who might well be expected to take a very special interest in the matter, but also of some larger local authorities who have expressed the same view, although they are not always as directly interested as are the smaller ones.
We shall be wrong to allow this matter to pass without securing at least some undertaking that it will be looked at again, as we secured an undertaking, after a lot of trouble, a year ago. I do not see why the Minister should not follow the hallowed practice of a year ago by making a proposal and then withdrawing it after some consideration of the points of view expressed on both sides of the House. The suggested alterations do not meet the needs of the local authorities, and one can well see why. Most of the proposals depend upon certain interpretations of the Town and Country Planning Act which have certainly not been declared in the courts, and they also provide merely for consultation and also request the planning authorities to approach the Minister in case there might be any overriding of the smaller authorities. It is not surprising that this is not felt to be adequate by the local authorities concerned.
There is another matter which I wish briefly to raise. For reasons which will be fully understood, it may be that I did not properly catch the comments made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he gave his rather express list of minor alterations which were proposed to the Defence (General) Regulations. I may not have caught the name of this particular Regulation as he was going through them, and if I am in error I apologise in advance, but I am interested to know whether the Government propose to revoke Regulation 53, which deals with the requisitioning of property other than land. This referred particularly to the original war-time problem of finding housing accommodation for the homeless, especially in London, and the very wide use of those powers that the authorities in London undoubtedly made. Is it now felt that adequate use is being made of other powers which exist for compulsory purchase to warrant the complete withdrawal of this requisitioning power?
2140
I am not saying it is wrong to do away with it. I appreciate that it is an extremely expensive operation. It is expensive to the Treasury and the Government of the country, without giving any comparable advantage in ownership of property. The property remains in the hands of the private owners and large sums of public money are expended on it. As a matter of information, I think we should know what the proposals of the Government are, and whether they are satisfied at the complete withdrawal of this power, which has been little used in recent years.
I do not want to make any further general comments. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends wish to follow up some of the points that have been made, but I hope it will be possible to have an assurance from the Government Front bench, before we part with these Regulations, that they will be prepared to review this matter which has been the subject of so much discussion and upon which so many pleas have been made from the Government benches as well as from this side of the House. In fact, I do not think there was anyone who supported the point of view adopted by the Treasury Bench in regard to Regulation 68CA. I appeal to them to make a clear assertion that they will review the matter in order to satisfy what I feel to be a proper concern on the part of local authorities.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I have very deep sympathy, somewhat Parliamentary in character, for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and that on two counts. In the first place, he has had some difficulty with the local authorities. I quite appreciate that he cannot go round and see every local authority in the country. I happen to have seven in my constituency, of all the three possible kinds of county districts. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman consults with the associations of local authorities, as no doubt he consults with corresponding bodies of other organisations. I am told, and I gather from his silence that it must be true, that every single association of housing authorities in the country has told him outright that they object to the discontinuance of this Regulation 68CA, and in those circumstances it puts him in a difficulty.

2141
I have tried to think what he ought to do. I remember all sorts of assertions by the Tory Party as to the value that should be placed on the independence of local authorities, and on the extent to which we, when we were in power, interfered with them. Their expectations were reasonably high that their interests would be advanced as soon as the Tories came back to office. What a shock has been administered to them at such an early stage by the throwing overboard of yet one more of the small matters which were put before the country as a reason for supporting the Tory Party. It must be disquieting and most disturbing to the local authorities, and on that account I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman.
I see the hon. Gentleman is smiling, and, therefore, I am going in a moment to give practical effect to my sympathy by making a real suggestion to him which I hope he will use to get himself out of his difficulties. I sympathise with him because not only has he been stabbed by hon. Members and right hon. Members on this side of the House with intent to kill, but he has been stabbed in the back by hon. Gentlemen who support him not with intent to kill but apparently without any wish in this respect officiously to keep him alive. That is really something about which one sympathises with him.
I am not going to say very much more about the merits of this matter. I said just now that the local authorities in my Parliamentary division did not want this Regulation to be discontinued, and the reason is perfectly obvious. In the last resort this must be a housing matter. We were told that the Defence of the Realm Regulation under discussion does not give a sufficient right of appeal and consideration to the person evicted. I will put this to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not believe that this Regulation is very much used, but its existence and the threat of its use is an invaluable weapon in the hands of the local authority, because the alternative of recourse to planning legislation means that the enforcement notice has to have at least 28 days to run and there is the question of how often a county council meets. We know the difficulties of that.
I do not think I am exaggerating the matter if I say that the man who offends against what I am sure we all intend and
2142
who unnecessarily and wrongfully converts housing accommodation into non-housing accommodation can play the statutory fool for three months with impunity. That is too slow, and if we do this we deprive the local authorities of powers that they ought to have. After all, they are elected bodies. They depend on these people for their votes to get back on to the council. They are not going to be unreasonable about transactions in a matter of this sort, and I do not believe there is any real hardship in it at all.
If authorities prosecute and get convictions, it remains with the court to impose the penalty and no doubt it will be proportionate to the character and type of the offence. So I do not believe there is any real hardship in the least about the Regulation, but there is very real hardship if we weaken the hands of the local authorities at this moment in a matter which is of vital importance to every authority in the country which has a housing list and is finding it difficult to deal with it at the moment. That would include most of them. It would include all those I know. Offhand, I cannot think of any housing authority which is not in that position. To weaken their hand at the moment simply because we would like to scrap as many Defence Regulations as possible, or because it sounds nice to say we are scrapping them, is an anti-social performance. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary does not mean it, and I am going to offer him a nice way out.
I have a Private Member's Bill coming on for 13th March. If he will continue this Defence Regulation until my Bill has become law, I will give him a bit of the Bill in which to put this Regulation into permanent form. The title of the Bill is "A Bill to amend the law relating to local authorities." If ever there was a generous offer from an Opposition back bencher to help a Parliamentary Secretary out of a difficulty, there it is I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me a little bit of attention in return.
There is a pretty good galaxy of talent on the Government Front Bench. There often is, but it does not include at the moment anyone from the Ministry of Agriculture. I wonder why, I wonder if the allotment holders are getting a

2143
curious dig made at them by the Government. As a class, allotment holders are a representative crowd. They are good, honest, hard-working people who cultivate their gardens for their own and for the national benefit. We all have a soft spot for them. I will not exclude hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Under Regulation 62AA, allotment holders were able, subject to considerable safeguards, to deal with the owners of dogs found straying on their allotments. The allotment holders had to put up a notice to warn people outside the allotments, and if a prosecution was brought, it was a defence to prove that the owner had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the dog would not stray on the allotments. My dog, alas, is dead, but if the Parliamentary Secretary and I were going out for a walk with a dog and we came to allotments, we should, as law-abiding citizens read the notice and put the dog on a lead, and all would be well. Nobody could object to that.
This Regulation was quite a small thing, a sensible thing. If it has been sensible for all these years, why is it any less sensible now? Dogs have no votes; allotment holders have. If this is purely a political matter, the Government had better keep the Regulation going. There is an hon. Member of this House who wants to introduce a Bill to prevent dogs from doing damage to livestock, agriculture and so on.
Mr. Bing: Would my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity of expressing the view that this particular Regulation is singled out in the Campaign Handbook for 1951 of hon. Gentlemen opposite as one for which opportunity should be found to transfer it to the Statute Book? The Book says:
"It is a useful and minor amendment of the present law."
Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend might suggest that it could also be added to the Bill.
Mr. Mitchison: I am very much indebted to my hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite who is bringing in a Bill about dogs might offer to his hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench a bit of that Bill in order to make this little piece of dog legislation permanent. Seriously, it
2144
is too silly to withdraw this Regulation now. This is a kind of minor canine burnt offering on the altar of ideology, and might be dispensed with.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. A. Hargreaves: I want to return to Regulation 68CA and to deal with the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary when questioned on the effect of withdrawal of the Regulation in cases where planning permission had been obtained for a change of user, subject to postponement. The Parliamentary Secretary did not see the point, but it was recognised immediately by other hon. Members. It was quite clear that where planning permission was given for a change of user in the case of dwelling-houses, it was subject to postponement under the Regulation.
If the Regulation is revoked, there will be no means of preventing the immediate carrying out of these alterations. The Parliamentary Secretary made an error when he suggested that this Regulation was not so essential in the case of a county borough, because the housing and planning authorities were the same; though he recognised that where the county council was the planning authority they might not be as well informed of conditions in the district and might not have the same intimate knowledge of the damage that would be caused by a change of user, as the smaller body. He skated very lightly over the difficulties that would face the planning authority in London if we were to clear away this Defence Regulation.
I return to the position as it concerns the county borough. The point taken by the Parliamentary Secretary is that the sanction of the Regulation, and the fact that people who are responsible for altering housing premises to other uses can be punished, is of outstanding importance. I do not, however, regard that as the best use of this Regulation.
An owner may want to change the use of a dwelling-house. My experience is that the most informal approach is made to the housing authority. Not even plans are prepared. The value of the Regulation is not that someone can be punished for illegally making alterations, but that an informal approach can be made to a housing authority without any expenditure by the owner of the premises in the

2145
preparation of plans and so on; and the principle as to whether the housing authority are prepared to allow the alteration is settled without any difficulty or trouble whatever.
I would go even further. The housing authority, in the same informal manner, can negotiate with the owner of the premises. I have known them to conduct the negotiation on the basis that a change of user might be agreed to if the owner would permit some part of the premises to continue in housing use; that is to say, the place could be converted into office or factory accommodation, but plans should be made for a caretaker or watchman to continue in occupation. This has happened in the most informal of discussions in innumerable cases. The Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that in the vast majority of cases applications to housing authorities are made along those lines. People who are punished for already having carried out alterations represent only a small minority of cases.
I want to deal with the matter as it confronts the planning authority within the same county borough. To take a city that the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, if in Liverpool an area of old houses, well constructed, has over a period time been in some measure converted—say, before 1938—to other uses, is it not reasonable to expect that over a period of time the planning authority would regard that area as one of industrial development, possibly for the establishment even of obnoxious trades? That, however, is no good reason for permitting the remaining housing accommodation in the area to go out of use altogether.
We all know that if that planning authority has already committed itself to the development of an area as an industrial one for the growth of certain trades, it would be extremely difficult for them, without the existence of the Regulation, to go back upon decisions they had already made for the use of that area for factory, trading or office development, and to say that although they knew it was a trading area, they would still permit parts of it to continue to be used for dwelling-houses.
I have been a member of a housing authority for 22 years and I know of
2146
many thousands of cases where this Regulation has been of the utmost value in the housing emergency, which still continues. That, to me, is the outstanding point. There is no question of the emergency clearing away.
There is a profound belief among the housing authorities of the country that this is a most useful weapon in their hands, because of the sanctions it enables them to apply and because it is an easy and quick way of conducting friendly negotiations with those who propose alterations in dwelling-houses. I hope the Government will have second thoughts about this matter, recognising that the Regulation has been of great advantage to housing authorities and that the proposed transfer of these functions under the 1947 Act would be of little value by comparison with the Regulation which I ask, in the interest of housing authorities, should be continued in force.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I sincerely hope that the Government will decide to think again about Regulation 68CA. I ought to say, perhaps, that the local authority in the constituency which I represent—the Metropolitan borough of Fulham—is concerned about this matter, although, indeed, it is hardly necessary to say so, because in that respect the Metropolitan borough of Fulham does not appear to be different from any other local authority in the country.
The Parliamentary Secretary has had arguments hurled at him from in front and from behind, and a little time ago from his flank by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). But, in addition, although he put his argument before us with the patience and care and diligence which the House is accustomed to expect from him, it was apparent that he had no positive enthusiasm for the case he was making. The whole of his argument came to no more than an attempt to rebut certain objections to allowing 67CA to lapse. At no time did he present to us any positive advantage which would be gained by allowing this Regulation to disappear.
True, he attempted to rebut some of the arguments which have been urged in criticism of the decision to which the Government so far adhere. For example,

2147
he dealt with the legal argument and told us that the planning authority would be able to take housing considerations into account. We learn from what has been issued by the Conservative Party Central Office that that judgment is based on what is called the best legal opinion available. Views may differ, of course, as to what is the best legal opinion available. But whatever view one takes about that, we have to admit that even the best legal opinion can sometimes be mistaken as to the judgment which ultimately will be given by the courts in a matter of this kind.
What, therefore, does the Parliamentary Secretary's argument about the legal position amount to? At the moment, while 67CA is in force, we have a method which we know with certainty can be relied on to produce the desired result, if it is invoked. Instead, we are to be given a method of which we can have only an opinion that it probably will turn out all right when it is put to the test in courts.
Dr. Stross: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point that, allegedly, the best legal opinion has been obtained and has given such a view, is it not fair also to bear in mind, on the other side, that the legal opinion of all the town clerks in the country is against that view?
Mr. Stewart: Indeed, yes; I am obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing out that point. But even if we were to do what the Government have apparently done in the matter, and set all that aside, they can on no argument suggest that it is the better course legally to allow 67CA to lapse. The most that the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to say is that possibly it might be no worse.
When we examine not the legal certainty but the swiftness and suitability of the procedure, there again he was able to suggest to us that the procedure under Regulation 68CA lapses and we have to rely on the planning Act. The procedure, he argued, would not be so slow as some of the critics of the Government decision have suggested it would be. He was certainly not able to suggest that the procedure under the planning Act will not be slower than under Regulation
2148
68CA. Once again, we are, on the Parliamentary Secretary's own showing, obliged to face the situation that the position which the Government are to create is inferior, from the point of view of the public interest, to the position which at present exists.
Then there is the question of the rights, powers and opportunities of the smaller local authorities. There, again, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested to us that because of the discussions that have been held and because of the circular that is to be issued the local housing authorities will not be so seriously disadvantaged as we might have supposed. It is true that they are no longer to have the power which they enjoy at present to forbid the turning of residential property to commercial use. They are to lose that power.
What are they getting in exchange? That the planning authority to which that power goes, and which may legally be able to take housing considerations into account—we cannot be certain of that and it has, as a rule, not so close a knowledge of the housing problem as the local housing authority possesses—is to be required, indeed obliged, to consult the housing authority. But those consultations can be as unsatisfactory to the housing authority as the Minister's consultations with the local authorities on this matter have been to them.
Mr. Marples: If the housing authority is not satisfied the matter will ultimately be referred to the Minister. In other words, the planning authority cannot override the housing authority.
Mr. Stewart: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be clear about this. I understand that the planning authority is obliged, without question, to consult with the housing authority. I do not think it is perfectly clear that if the consultation does not result in agreement there is an obligation to refer the matter to the Minister. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can clear up that point.
Mr. Marples: Yes. If the hon. Member reads my speech carefully tomorrow he will find that I said that if the housing authority does not agree, any case of dispute must be referred to the Minister.
Mr. Stewart: I was looking recently at the text which, I understand, the Conservative Central Office put out and it is not so explicit as the hon. Gentleman.
Suppose that matter is referred to the Minister. Can he have cleared up the point as to whether that Minister has the legal authority to override the planning authority's decision in the matter and uphold that of the housing authority? It would be useful if we could be clear on that point; perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could clear it up. I think he will agree that I am not trying to make difficulties for him; he gave us a careful and diligent explanation. I am sure, however, that he will see that his silence in this matter does mean that in the last resort the planning authority can get its way.
The greatest pressure and dissuasion might be brought to bear on it by the housing authority and the Minister but it would appear—this is the position I am putting forward and the Parliamentary Secretary is not contradicting me—that if a housing authority chose to stick to a decision in defiance of what the planning authority thought right, and in defiance of the opinion of the Minister, it could, in fact, stick to it. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree, and I believe the House will be of the opinion, that that is a position less satisfactory, both for the public welfare and for the status of local authorities, than exists at the present time.
So on all of the three counts which the hon. Gentleman has introduced; certainty of law, swiftness of procedure and the harmonious relations of local authorities, all we can be assured about, even if we take the most optimistic view of the points still uncertain, is that perhaps the position will only be a little worse and not a great deal worse than it is at the present time. And if we take a less optimistic assumption on the points legally in doubt, the position may be a great deal worse.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure he is as much moved as any of us by the serious nature of the housing problem at the present time, to put to himself this question: what positive advantage is to be obtained by letting this Regulation lapse? Apparently, on the argument I have been endeavouring to put before the House, from every
2150
angle one looks at it, the position which will result if it does lapse will be worse than the position at the present time. We have not been given a single consideration to suggest that anything will be better as a result of this Regulation lapsing.
It would appear that all the local authorities who have been consulted want the Regulation retained. I am encouraged in that view, because, speaking as one who not long ago was a junior Minister to one who now occupies that office, I felt certain that if the hon. Gentleman had up his sleeve any substantial body of local opinion in support of the disappearance of this Regulation he would have produced it earlier in the debate, and he would have been quite entitled to do so.
It is true that he has told us that the position it is proposed to create by letting this Regulation lapse exists in Scotland and is working very well there. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that one cannot argue in that casual fashion from Scottish law and Scottish local government and Scottish housing planning and legislation, to the position in England. Before we could accept that argument, before he could even convince himself, we should have to know what was the full legal and local government background prevailing in Scotland; and I certainly would not attempt to pronounce on that matter. Against that, we have instead the present conditions under Regulation 68CA. That position has been satisfactory in England, and that is much more relevant to the considerations before us on this Amendment.
As we know, the housing emergency is still extremely acute. The people of this country, I think, show an amazing patience and common sense in the face of it. They are prepared to accept arguments about it, if they believe those arguments are well founded, which draw their attention to such inevitable matters as the limitation of labour, materials, finance and capital investment.
But they will become extremely impatient if they feel that a queue of people waiting for better housing is being held up, if only by a single case, through something which could easily be remedied; and if they see residential accommodation being turned, unnecessarily and undesirably, to non-residential

2151
purposes, simply because the Government and Parliament, through inadvertence or ill-advice, have thrown away a legal safeguard against waste of accommodation. They will feel that they have a real grievance against the Government and the House.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman—he has not to do more than this—to say that he has listened with care to the arguments advanced from both sides of the House, and that he will ask his right hon. Friend to look at this matter again before the decision is irrevocably made. If he does that he will earn the respect of all of us in this House and I think he will find that he will have earned the gratitude of many people who have their own bitter, personal reasons for watching the housing situation closely.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested, I do not know how seriously, that there was one channel by which the Parliamentary Secretary could get the principle of this Regulation into permanent legislation, perhaps with such modification as experience may show to be necessary. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that rather unusual offer, cannot we wait, instead of letting the Regulation drop now, until the Government have brought forward their permanent legislation to deal with the matters now dealt with by Regulation which they propose to enshrine in permanent legislation?
I think that the hon. Gentleman would find that the Government could get safeguards against the misuse of accommodation such as those in this Regulation, put sensibly in some permanent form. It should not take very long to do that. Surely, until it is done it would be better to keep this Regulation rather than, for literally no good reason whatever, to fall back on an alternative which, on the hon. Gentleman's own showing, is in every respect inferior to the working of the Regulation itself.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am glad that I have been called upon to speak if only for the interesting personal reason that it is now some two years and 10 months since I had the opportunity of addressing this House. I do not say that my absence was entirely sought by me. During the time I have been away I
2152
have gone through a process of political transit. I have gone from the relative insecurity of suburban London to the political sanity and good sense of Northern Yorkshire.
It can be said about the Cleveland division, apart from its political good sense, which is outstanding, that it is a far flung area which contains no fewer than six local authorities. Five are urban district authorities and one is a borough council. They are rather mixed in their political composition, as one would imagine in an area of that kind. Some have Labour majorities. There is at least one with a solid Conservative majority while there are others which follow the older tradition in local government of independence of any political party.
But I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that they are all—to my knowledge—agreed at present on one matter. They dislike intensely the proposal of the Government to drop Regulation 68CA. There might be a reason for dropping it if times were normal. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends had made some really far-reaching progress in solving the housing difficulty, then it might be different. I would not take away from the hon. Gentleman any of the credit which he claims for his right hon. Friend's housing achievements, although our opinions on that subject might be mixed. I am certain that he thinks that very good progress has been made but even he would not dare to say that the national housing problem is in any sense solved. Of course, it is not.
In fact, very sensibly, the hon. Gentleman does not claim that the need for some kind of instrument is not still there, but he tries to argue that the broader sanction given by town and country planning is sufficient. I want to put this consideration, which I do not think has been mentioned in the debate so far, to the Parliamentary Secretary. There are areas in various parts of the country, and certainly in my own constituency, where there is a steady social and economic movement away from the use of premises for purely residential purposes to their use as business and commercial premises, yet there are a considerable number of houses which remain in the same areas for residential use.
Of course, if an application for keeping these premises in residential occupation is

2153
made on purely planning grounds, there may not be sound planning grounds for keeping them in that state, but if, on the other hand, the application was made on the ground of purely housing needs, there would be every reason, in present circumstances, why the situation should remain as it is. After all, it is the housing authority, the genuine local authority, that knows the housing needs, while the planning authority is bound, under the Act, to be somewhat remote from the facts.
That brings me to another point, which I want to put as fairly as I can, as well as with reason and good feeling, to the Parliamentary Secretary. During the time that I have been absent from the deliberations of this House, I have had the opportunity to do perhaps a little more broad political reading than one has the common opportunity to do here. One difficulty about being a Member of Parliament is that one becomes more and more ignorant as time goes on. I have been reading much literature issued by the busy publicity department of the hon. Gentleman's party, and the point which is made continuously in regard to local government is that the decision should be made by the people on the spot.
The effect of this present change, however, is that the decision will not be made on the spot by those knowing the local housing needs, but will be made by the more distant planning authority. It seems to me, therefore, that, from the point of view of published Tory Party doctrine, the proposed change is a somewhat remarkable one. That would not be a good reason, in the ordinary way, to win my support but I think that in all the circumstances it might commend itself to the hon. Gentleman.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), it was stated that in the event of a dispute an appeal could be made to the Minister, but that might well take a long time, even if the Minister, in the long run, had the power to act. The appeal is bound to take a period of weeks, months or even longer, while, all the time, it is socially essential that the local housing authority should act even if the planning authority disagrees.
The hon. Gentleman has been attacked from all sides of the House—true, in the nicest possible way, but, nevertheless,
2154
attacked. There has been a continual barrage from this side of the House, and much sniping, from time to time, from his own back benches, which is natural because, after all—though it may be strange to remember it—hon. Gentlemen on the other side receive the same resolutions from local authorities as we receive. There is an admitted sense of unity in the House tonight on this question of Regulation 68CA.
I want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary most respectfully and modestly that he is a man of flexibility. [An HON. MEMBER: "They all are."] My hon. Friend says that all hon. Members of the Conservative Party are flexible, but I am sure that, on this occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary could bend with open decency, and, in the interests of his own party as well as housing needs, accept in present circumstances that this Regulation should continue.
9.0 p.m.
Sir Leslie Plummer: I should not be in order in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) on a maiden speech because it was not one, but it was received with the kindness and courtesy with which maiden speeches are traditionally received in this House. Therefore, I think I might be permitted to say how glad we are to see him back once again and that we look forward to his further contributions to our debates.
I want to make a real cri de coeur to the Parliamentary Secretary on the question of Regulation 68CA. I have the sad distinction of representing one of the worst hit suburbs of London. There is no other constituency in the country that had such an appalling time as Deptford experienced during the war.
One quarter of the houses in my constituency were built before 1870, two out of every three of the remainder were built between 1870 and 1916, and every single house in Deptford suffered damage during the war. Two thousand of them were destroyed, and there is left to the people of Deptford a hideous legacy of brokendown, decaying and poor houses.
The tenants of these houses have suffered very considerably indeed. They were in the front line during the war and they behaved as the rest of the people of London behaved, with extreme

2155
courage and tenacity in carrying on with their work. They are entitled to say to the Government, whether it be a Labour Government or a Tory Government, that they should have the very first priority in getting better and new accommodation.
For what are they asking now? They are asking that nothing should be put in their way in getting new accommodation, and the Town Clerk, the members of the borough council and the people on the housing committee who know the requirements of the constituency intimately and who understand all the problems are saying that the removal of Regulation 68CA will produce problems which will necessarily interfere with the progress they want to make.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this. These are the people who put up a stern and obdurate resistance to the night and day attacks made on London during the war. Consider them now. They did not have such a good time during the war, and they have not had such a wonderful time since the war. If only the Government will reconsider their decision to withdraw Regulation 68CA and will regard it as a piece of permanent legislation, they will earn the thanks of the housing authority in my constituency and of the housing authorities of all the blitzed boroughs of London.
9.3 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: I rise not for the purpose of closing this debate, but merely to raise, without any disrespect to Regulation 68CA—the importance of which I see most clearly—the question of another Regulation which it is proposed to omit from the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act and which has been referred to this afternoon by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is a Regulation of very great importance and ought not to be lost sight of.
It is Regulation 62AA which was a Regulation under which we had power to deal with the intrusion of dogs on allotments. Since the last Government went out of office and the present one came in there has been a good deal of feeling that the present representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, who on the political level are composed very largely of big and successful farmers, have, in
2156
fact, shown a good deal less consideration for the amateur food producer than did the last administration.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), both before and after he became Minister of Agriculture, took a very great interest indeed in looking after the amateur food producer, who is no mean producer of food in this country. He produced a very great deal indeed.
Since we left office there have been a long line of unfriendly actions towards these amateur producers, and this dropping of Regulation 62AA is the last in the line. Lord Hudson, speaking in another place, has already addressed a very vigorous, though friendly, appeal to the Government, which I should like to reinforce tonight, by asking them to reconsider this. If by dropping this Regulation we were doing anything that would help to get rid of needless Regulations, I could well understand it, but by dropping this Regulation we do nothing at all of that sort.
It is argued by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that the Regulation was introduced to protect unfenced, war-time allotments. I had four and a half years at the Ministry, and during a large part of the time I was the Chairman of the Allotments Council, and I say that that was just not so. The purpose of this Regulation was to protect all those who spent a large part of their time trying to grow food on allotments in urban areas. It is not true to say it was intended for unfenced, war-time allotments, and that now that the war is over there is no need to continue it.
The hon. Gentleman argues, in the second place, that the allotment holders have the right of recourse to the ordinary law of the land. But that costs a lot of money, and it is of no use pretending that that is a great help in this case. Had it been, we should never have had the Regulation in the first place. Even when the allotment holder has gone to court, the dog still has his bite. He has his first bite, and that is the defence. One does not get very far by this means. There was the case of the chap who suffered an enormous loss of food because of a dog, and he lost the case because it was said the dog had not been known to do that sort of thing before.

2157
The Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary are being thoroughly inconsistent. They vie with each other almost every week-end to see who can make the most blood-curdling speech about dealing with dogs that savage the sheep and interfere with the farmers. Here we have professional farmers very worked up about what harm dogs do to professional farmers, but at the very moment when, quite rightly, they are worked up about that, they remove the Regulation that protects the amateur farmers. It is really not very fair. If the one sort of farmers need protection, then the others do, too.
I do not want to labour the point, and I am very grateful for having had the chance to mention this matter amongst all the others that have been mentioned tonight. I plead with the Government to recognise that there is no good case this year for dropping this Regulation, and that the chap who puts a lot of money, effort and interest into producing food on his allotment needs the protection of this Regulation. It is really not fair to him to withdraw the Regulation under which the person who allows his dog wilfully to stray on allotments, to foul them, to tear them up, is not made responsible. It is a very poor reward for the allotment holder.
The National Allotments Society is a grand body and represents an even grander body of people, and it has friends on both sides of the House. It knows that this Regulation is of value. There were not a lot of prosecutions under it, but the position under it was better than it was before the Regulation. It was brought in under Lord Hudson when he was a distinguished occupant of the benches opposite. It is silly to drop it.
I ask the Government to reconsider it. If they do, they will be highly thought of by many people who would not think of them highly for any other reason. I hope that by that reason, as well as the others I have adduced, the Government will be persuaded to think again about losing this Regulation. The dropping of it will do no good, but will do a lot of harm. Even if the Government do not restore this facility and power in this form, I hope they will find another opportunity of restoring what is contained in the Regulation.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Tonight we are debating the Act and the Regulations which depend upon that Act which, in the main, control the economic life of the country. The Regulations contain a great many other things as well to which we ought to give some attention, but in the main they contain the chief economic controls without which it would be quite impossible for the country to continue.
We are discussing these Regulations in the shadow of a growing economic storm. If one looks even at the export figures published today one sees them running 5 per cent. down on last quarter, and with a 7 per cent. fall on last year. Whole schemes have been built up on the basis predicted by the Chancellor that we would have an increase in production, but we are faced with a period of falling production, and it is against that background that the House ought to consider whether this is the time to be casual about the Regulations upon which the economic safety of the whole country will depend.
One thing which has been obvious about this debate has been its casual nature. When I intervened to ask the Home Secretary why we were removing the Defence (Encouragement of Exports) Regulations he said, quite casually, "I do not know. I cannot be expected to bear everything in mind." But these are the Regulations which provide for setting up a council to promote the sale abroad of textiles. There may be a very good reason for doing away with them. There may be a great number of reasons. But one would have thought that at least the Minister responsible for textiles would have taken the trouble to be in the House and to whisper to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why it was that these Regulations were to be done away with.
Looking at the White Paper itself one sees that it probably did not occur to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this was so, because the White Paper contains what may be a mistake, or perhaps merely an indication of the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind works. If he would turn to his own White Paper he will see that it says, on page 2:
"the following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations."

2159
and it deals with the Regulations which are to be removed. Then if he looks at the bottom of the page he will see Regulation 78. That, of course, is one of the Defence (General) Regulations, and the White Paper goes on to say:
"and the Defence (Encouragement of Exports) Regulations."
But the Defence (Encouragement of Exports) Regulations are not Defence (General) Regulations at all. They come in quite another part of the book. They have nothing whatever to do with Regulation 78, to which they are joined. They are obviously there by a misprint, and one would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if there is already one misprint in his White Paper, would have at least noted the misprint and then inquired which were the Regulations that had been stuck in by mistake. But not a bit of it. He just comes to the Box and says, "I do not know."
The House has a right to hear from the responsible Ministers which are the Regulations that are being done away with, and why they are being done away with. We are told, first, of Regulation 47BB. There may be a very good reason for that, but we should hear something from the Minister of Transport about this important problem. When a question of this sort about transport comes up, where is the Minister? Why, planning to suppress discussion on transport; working out a Guillotine programme so that we cannot even discuss the matter on the Bill, and, therefore, too busy to come to the House when we are revoking a Regulation which refers to his Department.
Next we have 54A, the power to permit nuisances where necessary. Perhaps it is not necessary to have that power any longer, but at least we ought to hear about it.
Then we come to Regulation 58AE, which seems to be a matter for the Minister of Fuel and Power, because it concerns the training of persons employed in the mines. There may be very good reasons for doing away with it, but we ought not just to throw aside the mining training scheme without one word from any responsible Minister as to why it should be done.
Regulation 60, which is a very important Regulation dealing with the safety of workers in factories, is also to be thrown
2160
away. We have had no explanation from the Minister of Labour. It has not been suggested that the factory inspectors think that this Regulation can be done away with. There may be all sorts of reasons for it, but it is difficult for hon. Members to work out the effects of these Regulations, particularly in the way in which they are dealt with in the White Paper.
Then there is the Regulation dealing with the modification with regard to medical prescriptions. There may be a very good reason for revoking that. Drugs may now be available. But it was a very good Regulation in its day and we should know a little more about why it is being modified. Then there is the removal of the penalty for allowing dogs to stray on allotments. It is not being very fair to the public to put into the handbook on which one fights an Election—and upon which everybody makes his speeches—a statement saying that this Regulation is to be made permanent and thus hope to get the votes of the allotment holders. The hon. Member may remember what he said in his own campaign guide:
"There are a number of Defence Regulations which are not controls in the usual sense of the word, but rather, minor and useful amendments to pre-war statute law (e.g., Regulation 62AA, which allows penalties to be imposed if dogs stray on allotments). Opportunity should be found to transfer these to the Statute Book."
It was all right when hon. Members opposite were getting the votes of the allotment holders to say that they were going to put this Regulation on the Statute Book; but when they consider the big farmers who are not so interested in allotment holders and feel that they are tiresome competitors, hon. Members opposite think that a Regulation of this kind can be quietly revoked during a debate that is so dubious that nobody will notice it.
Then there is the penalty with regard to keeping pigs, hens and rabbits in Scotland. Why England was exempted from it by a previous modification I do not know, but at least we might have heard something from the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are always told by hon. Members opposite how important it is that there should be a great number of Ministers representing Scotland. Apparently there is also another rule that none of them should ever speak in the

2161
House for fear that they would give away the whole of the fraud.
Then there is the Regulation concerning the delegation of the functions of the Minister of Agriculture. That is a Regulation of considerable importance because local agricultural executive committees derive their powers from it. We have had no explanation why this Regulation is going. Then there is the Regulation with regard to the supplementary provisions as to the control of undertakings.
What is much more serious than the Regulations which have gone are the general remarks thrown out quite casually by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of the debate. He said that he intended to modify the Regulations in all sorts of ways which no one on this side of the House can understand. Some of these existing Regulations are of far greater importance than others. The amendment of an important Regulation such as Regulation 55 or 58AA is a major matter and the dropping of some other Regulations is a comparatively minor matter.
Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman conceal, in his White Paper, the nature of these major alterations which he was making in the important Regulations and stick in a lot of Regulations about keeping pigs and hens in Scotland, as if they were all the changes he was making? The House has been very seriously deceived in this matter and I think it would be fairer to adjourn this debate so that we may have a real opportunity of considering the matter when we have read his speech—because some hon. Members were not here when he spoke. We should have an opportunity to consider the very important changes he has made in the law.
It is equally important to look at the form of what we are doing, because one of the biggest demagogic tricks which took place in the last Election was the suggestion made by all hon. Members opposite that these Regulations were all unnecessary and all one had to do was to put back the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends and they would put them into a form in which the House of Commons would be allowed to debate them. When we come here to debate them, we do it under the shadow of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's
2162
Guillotine and of his right hon. Friend's Closures. We do it all the time under the view that we can only have a very limited discussion.
But that was not how the right hon. and learned Gentleman got returned to Parliament. He was returned to Parliament as a result of a promise to have full Parliamentary discussion. Does he remember what he wrote, or what was written for him, in "Britain Strong and Free." It was:
"The war-time emergency legislation must be thoroughly overhauled. Such powers, but no more, as are required for the present critical situation should be incorporated in new statutes requiring annual renewal."
Where is any new statute—after a year? It is not here at all. There is not one requiring annual renewal.
The difficulty that we are in, and the difficulty recognised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and other hon. Friends when they made proposals in the course of the last Parliament was that this legislation, the first introduced in the House after the war, was, obviously, of a transitional type. We tried at a later stage, by putting them all in the Schedule, to bring the Regulations up each year so that they could be renewed. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman promised everyone in order to get their votes—that the Conservative Party would renew them every year. The Election manifesto goes on:
"New orders will have to be made under these new Acts, and thus all the regulations and Orders under emergency powers will have to be reviewed by Parliament. Parliament should exercise much more rigorous control of all delegated legislation."
What happens? When we put down on the Order Paper the very Amendments required to carry out the promise on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was elected, we are accused of obstruction. That is the practical way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite implement their pledges. It is worth while the House as a whole realising that.
Nothing has been the subject of a more demagogic method of attack than the Supplies and Services Act. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South proposed that we should put it into a better and more convenient form, Lord Woolton, speaking in Bradford, in June, 1949, on behalf

2163
of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—his speech was reproduced in their campaign handbook which was one of the things upon which they proceeded to fight the General Election—said:
"I urge the public to remember in particular this threat to their freedom—the Supplies and Services Act…"
It was not "going to be renewed" then; it was a "threat" to their freedom. It is worth noticing that Lord Woolton went on to call it
"… the Supplies and Services Act, the S.S. Act."
Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman blush to sit there with his right hon. Friends to reintroduce the "S.S. Act"? What did Lord Woolton say about the "S.S. Act" and those who introduced it?
"… the instrument whereby the public will be kept under perpetual control. It must not be allowed to become the law of this country. The people who propose it must be rejected by the electorate."
This demagogic attack was not confined to the more irresponsible Members of the party opposite; it was not confined to people like Lord Woolton, who are not in any sense responsible. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, a highly responsible Minister, in 1950, when we were considering the Act, laid down what should be the policy not for the Labour Government but for any Administration of which, as he put it, he might have the honour to be a member. He said:
"I do say, however, having gone so far, that I think that all parties of the House of Commons, not only those who sit on these benches but those who sit below the Gangway and those who sit opposite, ought to serve notice on the Administration—I do not know"—
the right hon. Gentleman was speaking when there was a Labour Government in power—
"… what Administration will be here in 12 months' time. …"
In fact, it was his Government and he was then sitting on those benches.
"… but the machinery will go on whatever the political heads—that we expect the Administration to make a very firm review of these orders, rules and regulations and to say which ought to be made at once a matter for legislation—some very important legislation, and some eminently suitable for Fridays—and which should be scrapped altogether."
2164
Then he went on to make a threat which has not been implemented, because this is what the Leader of the House then said:
"If there is no change at all in 12 months' time, then the House of Commons will be very critical of the Administration … to have a bureaucratic Administration with vague powers in the background, is obviously an easy way of governing the country through administrative action, and much easier for a larger majority than for a smaller majority, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. Even so, all this corpus has to be looked at and has to be pruned down, and we serve notice that in our view this has to be done within the next 12 months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2517–18.]
He went on to say that he did not mind the Act being passed for one more year.
Last year we called his attention to these words. He replied, in effect, "We are going to do all this but just give us another year to carry out our promises." Why have they not done so? Are we not to have any answers at all from any right hon. Gentlemen opposite on this aspect of the matter? It is of some importance, I should have thought, to fight an Election with this as one of the principal subjects in the Election, and then to go on disregarding it and all the things that have been said here in the House of Commons. We ought to know more about this.
I think I can speak for all my hon. Friends on this side of the House when I say that we believe, generally speaking, that the powers which are contained in the Defence Regulations are those, which while they have to be brought up to date in many respects, are absolutely essential for the safety of the country, and there may be even more need for them than there has been in the past. It was only because we possessed those powers that the Labour Government, from 1945 to 1950, were able to see us through a dangerous economic period. [Laughter.]
It was a very dangerous economic period, and it is no use hon. Members opposite laughing when we recall that every piece of lend-lease from the United States was cut off with the rapidity of a snap of the fingers. Who knows but that an economy that is based on the idea that there will always be aid from the United States might not all also be placed in similar difficulties by a sudden change of policy. We should be prepared for all

2165
sorts of difficulties, many of which are already looming on the economic horizon.
The real gravamen of my charge against the Government is the total irresponsibility with which they deal with this matter. There have been no answers to any of the major issues. There have been no replies to any of the questions that are really of vital import to the country. What about Regulation 55? What line do we take from that? What about Regulation 58A? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1950. He made a strong attack on both these Regulations. He said:
"Let me take another example. We object equally strongly, although this matter affects corporations and institutions more than it does individuals"—
I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman put in that piece; we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is equally tender to individuals and corporations—
"to the intensely wide terms of Regulation 55, which is, perhaps, the most notorious of all these Regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 173.]
This is the Regulation, above all others, upon which the economic safety of the country depends, and we are entitled to have a responsible reply on that matter from a Minister and not from a junior Minister.
It is no use someone like the Home Secretary getting up and, in speaking about the revocation of the Encouragement of Export Regulation, which is concerned with textiles, declaring, "I do not know about that; it is a technical matter." The encouragement of exports in our textile trade is not a technical matter. [Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has learned the answer since I will willingly give way to him. If he has not learned the answer at least I am entitled to make my criticism of him.
Here we are revoking a Regulation which on the face of it is designed for the encouragement of textile exports. I do not say that there may not be an excellent reason why this should be done. What I do say is that there is a ridiculous irresponsibility on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in what they are
2166
doing, for they do not know the reason for it.
This is a very serious issue. If we pass from these Regulations without being certain of Government policy in regard to controls, and unless we have a statement from some responsible Minister on the economic plan with which the Government are going to deal with controls, this House will have lost a great part of its control over the economic future of the country.
It may be more serious. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite got back into the House by promising that the House of Commons would be the place where these things would be decided. If they now proceed in this cavalier fashion, history will not excuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman, just because he was so busy with other things, that he did not bother to brief himself and put before the House of Commons the intentions of the Government.
History will not excuse any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who takes part at this moment in stripping this country of those economic powers and safeguards on which the livelihood of every person in Great Britain depends.
9.32 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): It was an agreeable change to find the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) speaking at this stage of the debate. It is a somewhat odd consequence of the system of second ballot. The greater part of his speech was based on a wholly genuine misapprehension of the procedure involved in these Regulations, one which it was very surprising to find in him.
Again and again he referred to changes which are to be made in certain of the Regulations, and he said, with his habitual emphasis, that the House had a right to know why—as he then put it rather less elegantly—they were being "done away with. "The doing away with, if I may adopt the hon. and learned Gentleman's vocabulary, will be effected in the normal way by the tabling of a Statutory Instrument. There will be facilities, in accordance with the procedure of the House, for debate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is in doubt about that procedure, I shall be happy to give him any necessary information.

2167
He was constructing a thoroughly unsound argument in the large part of his speech in which he indicated that he and the House should know more, at this stage, of the precise changes that will take place. All that has happened is that, in giving the House the general review of the matter, my right hon. and learned Friend has moved this Motion, indicating the general trends of policy in connection with the exercise of delegated legislation. All that has happened is that the House has been given additional information. So much for the larger part of the complaints which the hon. and learned Gentleman saw fit to make.
I will, out of courtesy to him, reply to the broad point, to which he appears to attach great importance, about the reason for the abandonment of the Defence (Encouragement of Exports) Regulations. I agree with him that any Regulations of that sort naturally attract the attention of hon. Gentlemen, at any rate of those whose study of them does not go beyond the study of the name. The position is that the provisions of these Regulations in respect of levy arrangements in an industry in connection with exports have been replaced by the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The hon. and learned Gentleman will find Section 9 particularly pertinent to this point.
It was necessary to retain the Regulations after that Act came into force in connection with organisations set up under them. I understand that the last two organisations to which those Regulations relate, and which were, therefore, the reason for keeping those Regulations in force, have announced their intention to wind themselves up. Consequently, the Regulations are no longer required and any future activities of this sort can be conducted under the permanent statute which is already part of the law of the land.
Before I refer to one or two of the arguments that have been adduced in the course of the debate, which has ranged over a fairly wide field, there are one or two general considerations which the House would expect me at this moment to put before it when we are asking the House, not, as part of the debate would I think have suggested to a good many
2168
hon. Members, to abolish the whole system, but to keep in effect a very substantial body of Regulations.
In reply to the speech on that point which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who always speaks with such authority and feeling on these subjects, I would deploy the case for the maintenance of a good many of these Regulations on these grounds. Apart from other matters, we are not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to indicate, in a state of normal peace. There is what is in substance a war raging in Korea, and something of the same sort in Malaya. That state of affairs is directly relevant to the necessity to keep in force the Regulations—46 and 47AE, I think—which relate to the making of arrangements for shipping for and towards those theatres of war.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked in terms why it was necessary to maintain in effect any of these Regulations. Apart from those powers needed in connection with war-like operations—operations which, I am sure, every hon. Member wishes to see conducted as efficiently and successfully as possible—there is also dependent upon the continuation of the main body of these Regulations the whole of the systems of food and fuel rationing, control of raw materials, control of building materials and operations, and a large part of the price control system. Equally dependent upon it to a considerable extent is opencast mining.
Therefore, there are very large parts of the system of our administration which would, if these Regulations were, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suggest, not renewed on 10th December, come to a sudden stop with a dislocating effect which I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasise. It is right that I should say that, because I, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, approach this question from the point of view that it is necessary for any Government seeking to continue these powers to justify them by very real practical necessities. I think that the philosophy behind our attitude to this question is one which would be not wholly uncongenial to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Perhaps I may also make this general comment. It is much less dangerous to

2169
entrust powers of this sort to a Government whose approach to these problems is as I have indicated than to a Government—were there to be such a Government—which had a tendency or a bias towards undue and excessive interference in the affairs of individuals. If one is to entrust the key of one's wine cellar to anybody, it is wisest to entrust it to a confirmed teetotaller. I except from that, of course, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), whose zeal on this subject is such that I know he would take a hatchet and destroy the bottles.
But I think there is a certain force in the contention that a Government whose approach to the problem is that of this Government can be trusted not to take or use excessive powers, and, indeed, the fact that a good deal of this debate has consisted in hon. Members opposite trying to force on this Government powers which the Government with equal pertinacity refuse to accept, is a very clear indication of that truth.
Equally, our record in this matter over the past year justifies this claim. My right hon. and learned Friend gave in detail, and I need not repeat, the very large number of Regulations which in whole or in part have been or will be dispensed with. Equally, the House will have heard with pleasure of the reduction which we have been able to make in the number of officials with powers of entry into business, and still more into private, premises. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) thought we might reduce it a little further. We are always looking at this problem very much with that attitude, but I am bound to say that we already manage with far fewer than were apparently found necessary by the Administration of which he was so distinguished a member.
As one of the big reductions is in a Department associated with Her Majesty's Treasury, I may perhaps be allowed to enlarge on one aspect of the matter. We are reducing the number of officials of the War Damage Commission and the Central Land Board who have powers of entry into private premises from a total of 885 to a total of 55. I would stress, as my right hon. and learned Friend stressed generally, that that fact, so far from involving any reflection upon the officials concerned, indicates the exact converse; it indicates the confidence
2170
which they have built in the public mind which makes it possible for them largely to operate without these powers. The small minority who are to retain the power are necessary only to deal with rather special classes of case.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: There are no claims.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member says there are no claims. He cannot be aware of the postbag which I receive from hon. Members on that subject.
As an indication of our general attitude, the fact that we are asking the House to extend for one year a considerable body of powers and Regulations does not mean that they need to continue in force for the whole of that year.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The hon. Gentleman said that last year.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said that last year, and the House sees that that has now been implemented to a very substantial degree. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that corroboration. I hope I do not need to reassure the House that as soon as it becomes possible to dispense with any power, we shall not hesitate to do so. We look at the matter from the point of view which I have already indicated—each power has to justify its retention.
I cannot add very much to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government upon the subject of Regulation 68CA. I think all hon. Members will agree that he gave with great clarity and force the reasons which have caused his right hon. Friend to reach that decision. I need not assure the House that it was a decision taken after very careful thought and consideration. I cannot hold out hopes of it being reversed. Needless to say, in the way normal with Ministers, at any rate in this Government, what has been said in this House will be studied but it would be quite wrong to raise false hopes of reconsideration of that Order.
My right hon. Friend, however, authorises me to say this: he has indicated that he will require planning authorities to consult with housing authorities before giving permission to

2171
changing the use of a dwelling. He is prepared in addition to do his best to place a further requirement on the planning authority to refer to him for decision any case involving a substantial amount of accommodation where an agreement between the authorities is not reached. I hope that that will be of help in allaying any fears there may be.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does that statement mean that the requirement will be for the planning authority to refer to the Minister for decision?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The words which my right hon. Friend authorises me to use are "will be referred to the Minister for decision."
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Is that quite independent of zoning?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the statement is perfectly clear. I make it on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and if the hon. and learned Member will permit me, I prefer not to add to it.
The Amendment before the House, to which the right hon. Member for South Shields, who moved it, did refer, though I think very few other hon. Members did, should, as a matter of courtesy, be dealt with. The Amendment would involve a Bill, which I understand was receiving its Second Reading in another place today, first going through all its stages there, then through all its stages in this House and then proceeding in the normal way to receive the Royal Assent, no doubt by the normal procedure of a Royal Commission.
If this Amendment were accepted, only after that procedure had been completed and the Royal Assent given would it be possible for this House and another place to deal with the Motion with which the House is dealing tonight. It would then require to be presented by Her Majesty's Government and the necessary Order would then be made. Even from the strictest and most technical point of view, if the whole body of Regulations is not to lapse—I understand it to be certainly not the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that it should—the whole of that procedure would have to take place before midnight on the night of 9th-10th December.
2172
Equally, I think hon. Members will agree that matters of this importance ought not to be left to be dealt with at the last minute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have that support from hon. Members opposite, who I thought were suggesting precisely that we should do so in respect of this Motion. It would obviously be quite unreasonable to leave matters of this importance to be dealt with with only a few hours to spare and with, in a technical sense, uncertainty as to their position. For that reason, it does not seem practicable to adopt the course which the right hon. Gentleman urged.
Nor, I submit to the House, is there any real necessity for so doing, because the power to revoke Regulations remains and there seems to be no very real practical difficulty in allowing a Bill to take its normal course and making the necessary revocations of the Regulations. The procedure is well known and would not involve submitting all these important matters of procedure to undue rapidity and to a perhaps somewhat precarious finish in the last few days or hours. Accordingly, although the right hon. Gentleman put his case with his usual moderation and force, it does not seem that, in dealing with a matter of this very considerable significance, the procedure he proposes and the advantages he envisages from it outweigh the very solid practical considerations involved.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) referred to Regulation 51. I think he had in mind its operation in connection with agriculture. As I am sure he is aware, if one leaves the agricultural argument out of the picture, the Regulation is required in connection with the Armed Forces by the Service Departments, for the housing of the homeless by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and in connection with opencast coal by the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
The hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) did not, I think, fully appreciate the Parliamentary procedure that will operate in respect of the revocations or variations when he referred to them being effected by a back-door method. They will, of course, be effected by precisely the same method by which the late Government effected similar changes, and in a way, whatever may be

2173
its merits or demerits, with which this House is perfectly familiar.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to Regulation 62AA, relating to trespass by dogs on allotments. Anything which the right hon. Gentleman says on agricultural matters is received, at any rate by me, with great respect. But there are one or two facts which I think are material to the decision. In the first place, I am assured by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that the records of his Department do not show one single prosecution under the Regulation.
The right hon. Gentleman may argue that none the less it has some value in terrorem as a deterrent. I think the answer to that was given by the Lord Chancellor in another place today when he observed that dogs cannot read notices. For the allotment holders there remain, of course, their full rights under the civil law. It is also pertinent to remember that the Regulation applies only to a certain limited category of allotments, in fact a category which I understand is rapidly diminishing.
The suggestion appeared to be that this ought to be made permanent. In that case, I am bound to remind the House that when the Allotment Act of 1950 was in Committee, the then Administration, of which I think the right hon. Gentleman was a member, rejected a new Clause moved to effect precisely that. It is therefore perhaps a little inconsistent if, two years later, he thinks this ought to be made permanent.
The real thing is, I think, to some extent a matter of balance and proportion. It is a question of whether, seven years after the end of the war, it is justifiable to maintain the machinery of Defence Regulations for the creation of a special specific criminal offence to deal with a subject of this sort. Though one may appreciate and fully understand the feelings of allotment owners, none the less if we are ever to reduce the amount of wartime and emergency legislation, it really is necessary to look at these matters to see whether in the circumstances of today the creation of a criminal offence of this sort, over and above the right to engage
2174
in civil law actions by the people concerned, is justifiable. I can say at once that my hon. Friend asks me to make it clear that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Department have not slackened in the slightest in their desire to stimulate and encourage food production. They desire in every way to secure its continuance.
Mr. Bing: If in fact the argument the hon. Gentleman is putting forward is so valid, would he explain how it was that in his own Campaign Handbook this Regulation was singled out as one most suitable of all the Regulations to be enacted into permanent legislation?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that at the time when that document was produced we were not in possession of the facts which were on the records of the Ministry of Agriculture, in particular of the fact which I have given to the House that no prosecutions of any sort under this Regulation had been made. Hon. Members surely must regard that as a relevant consideration to the justification for the retention or otherwise as part of the permanent law of a provision of this nature.
It is the fact that the records of the Department disclosed just that. In those circumstances it is a new factor which people of reasonable and adaptable minds, who are not so rooted that they cannot adapt their ideas to the facts, will take into account. Indeed the administration of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been a great deal better if they had been able to adapt some of their pre-conceived ideas.
Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned what happened in 1950. Will he accept it from me that this new fact, which was only discovered after his party came to power in 1951, was given to them during the debates of 1950?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman knows that facts may be given in one way or another. It is far more satisfactory to establish the facts from the records. Indeed, if those facts were given by the right hon. Gentleman during the debate of 1950, why did he advise his hon. Friends to vote against the proposal to make this part of the permanent law.
Mrs. Castle Mrs. Castle rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who has the Floor of the House does not give way. It is out of order for another hon. Member to stand.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The House will do me the credit of saying that I give way with what some of my hon. Friends regard as excessive frequency. I have followed that practice this evening. I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse me. I have other arguments to bring forward.
Those are, I think, the major arguments produced, apart from that of the hon. Member for West Ham, South in respect of the variation of Regulation 55. That, as he rightly pointed out, involves the possibility of smaller penalties being imposed upon persons who commit offences against the Regulations. That, again, is a good example of the need for a moderate and balanced approach to the question of these Regulations. Offences which in time of war require in the national interest to be punished more severely than their ordinary merits would perhaps demand, ought not to continue so to be punished in somewhat different times. Therefore, it seems right not to seek to bolster up the old system of emergency legislation by exaggerating the penalties above the level which the type of the offence would justify.
I think that this alteration is a very good example of the approach which this Government make to this particular problem and of the desire not to keep in force provisions — and particularly severely penal provisions—which could only really be justified by the exigencies of immediate and urgent war. On that issue, I am bound to say that we are right in present circumstances to secure that that somewhat unusual procedure, with its somewhat severe penalties, is abandoned.
It does seem, indeed, from the speeches made in criticism of the Government's proposals today that, with the exception of the attitude of the right hon. and
learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery, the general criticism has been, not that we are asking for excessive powers, but that we are not asking for enough. That is a very gratifying tribute of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, but that should not lead us from the practical approach which we have taken of not asking for, and not accepting, any power which cannot be justified by the practical necessities of the situation.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have been through these Regulations in detail. We have done our best to dispense with those that are not immediately and urgently justified by the actual existing situation. That process has enabled us to dispense with a certain number, and that attitude of mind remains for the future years, but we do submit to the House that, in the circumstances in which this country is placed today, the Regulations whose continuance we recommend, and the Acts upon whose continuance, of course, all these Regulations depend, do require in the national interest to be renewed.
We give—as we have given, again and again—the assurance not to maintain greater powers than the actually existing situation demands. We give the assurance that we shall watch them carefully to make sure that excessive powers are neither held nor sought, and therefore, with confidence, we ask the House to carry this Motion to renew the Act for a further year and permit these powers to be used in the national interest to the best of our ability.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 207.

Division No. 11.]

AYES

[10.3 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Baker, P. A. D.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Allan, B. A. (Paddington, S.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Alport, C. J. M.

Banks, Col. C.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Barber, Anthony

Birch, Nigel

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Barlow, Sir John

Bishop, F. P.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Baxter, A. B.

Black, C. W.

Arbuthnot, John

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Boyle, Sir Edward

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Braine, B. R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)

Hollis, M. C.

Osborne, C.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Hope, Lord John

Partridge, E.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Horobin, I. M.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Bullard, D. G.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Pitman, I. J.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Powell, J. Enoch

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Burden, F. F. A.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Profumo, J. D.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Raikes, H. V.

Campbell, Sir David

Hurd, A. R.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Carson, Hon. E.

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Redmayne, M.

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Remnant, Hon. P.

Channon, H.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Renton, D. L. M.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Robertson, Sir David

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

Cole, Norman

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Robson-Brown, W.

Colegate, W. A.

Kaberry, D.

Roper, Sir Harold

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Russell, R. S.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lambton, Viscount

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Cranborne, Viscount

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

Leather, E. H. C.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Crouch, R. F.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Scott, R. Donald

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Lindsay, Martin

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Linstead, H. N.

Shepherd, William

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Snadden, W. McN.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Low, A. R. W.

Speir, R. M.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Donner, P. W.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Stevens, G. P.

Doughty, C. J. A.

McAdden, S. J.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

McCallum, Major D.

Storey, S.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Summers, G. S.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Sutcliffe, H.

Erroll, F. J.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Fell, A.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Teeling, W.

Fisher, Nigel

Maclean, Fitzroy

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Fort, R.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Foster, John

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Touche, Sir Gordon

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Manningham-Bullar, Sir R. E.

Turner, H. F. L.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Vane, W. M. F.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Marples, A. E.

Vosper, D. F.

Godber, J. B.

Maude, Angus

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Gower, H. R.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mellor, Sir John

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Molson, A. H. E.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Wills, G.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Nugent, G. R. H.

Wood, Hon. R.

Hay, John

Oakshott, H. D.

York, C.

Heald, Sir Lionel

O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Heath, Edward

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

NOES

Adams, Richard

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Clunie, J.

Albu, A. H.

Bowden, H. W.

Collick, P. H.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Bowles, F. G.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Bacon, Miss Alice

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Cove W. G.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Brockway, A. F.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Bartley, P.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Daines, P.

Bence, C. R.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Benn, Wedgwood

Burke, W. A.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Benson, G.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Beswick, F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Bing, G. H. C.

Callaghan, L. J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Blackburn, F.

Carmichael, J.

Deer, G.

Blenkinsop, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Blyton, W. R.

Champion, A. J.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Boardman, H.

Chapman, W. D.

Edelman, M.

2178

2179

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

King, Dr. H. M.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Kinley, J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lewis, Arthur

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Lindgren, G. S.

Short, E. W.

Ewart, R.

MacColl, J. E.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Fernyhough, E.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Field, W. J.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson),

Fienburgh, W.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Finch, H. J.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Follick, M.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Foot, M. M.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Sorensen, R. W.

Forman, J. C.

Manuel, A. C.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Freeman, John (Watford)

Markham, Major S. F.

Sparks, J. A.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Mayhew, C. P.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Gibson, C. W.

Mellish, R. J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Glanville, James

Mikardo, Ian

Stress, Dr. Barnett

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mitchison, G. R.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Moody, A. S.

Swingler, S. T.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Sylvester, G. O.

Grey, C. F.

Morley, R.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Grimond, J.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Moyle, A.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hamilton, W. W.

Murray, J. D.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Hannan, W.

Nally, W.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Hargreaves, A.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Timmons, J.

Hastings, S.

Oliver, G. H.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Hayman, F. H.

Padley, W. E.

Viant, S. P.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Paget, R. T.

Wade, D. W.

Herbison, Miss M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Watkins, T. E.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Weitzman, D.

Hobson, C. R.

Parker, J.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Holman, P.

Paton, J.

Wells, William (Walsall)

Holt, A. F.

Peart, T. F.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Houghton, Douglas

Plummer, Sir Leslie

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Hubbard, T. F.

Popplewell, E.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Porter, G.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Wigg, George

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Proctor, W. T.

Wilkins, W. A.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Rankin, John

Williams, David (Neath)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Reeves, J.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Rhodes, H.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Richards, R.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Keenan, W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Kenyon, C.

Ross, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Royle, C.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 203.

Division No. 12.]

AYES

[10.14 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Birch, Nigel

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Bishop, F. P.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Alport, C. J. M.

Black, C. W.

Cole, Norman

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Colegate, W. A.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Braine, B. R.

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Arbuthnot, John

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

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

Baker, P. A. D.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Baldwin, A. E.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Crouch, R. F.

Banks, Col. C.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Han. P. G. T.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Barber, Anthony

Bullard, D. G.

Crawder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Barlow, Sir John

Bullock, Capt. M.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Baxter, A. B.

Bullus Wing Commander E. E.

Davidson, Viscountess

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Burden, F. F. A.

Deedes, W. F.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Campbell, Sir David

Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Carson, Hon. E.

Donner, P. W.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Cary, Sir Robert

Doughty, C. J. A.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Channon, H.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Raikes, H. V.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Erroll, F. J.

Lindsay, Martin

Redmayne, M.

Fell, A.

Linstead, H. N.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Fisher, Nigel

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Renton, D. L. M.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Fort, R.

Low, A. R. W.

Robson-Brown, W.

Foster John

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Russell, R. S.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

McAdden, S. J.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd

McCallum, Major D.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Godber, J B.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Gower, H. R.

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Shepherd, William

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Snadden, W. McN.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Maclean, Fitzroy

Spearman, A. C. M.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Speir, R. M.

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Stevens, G. P.

Hay, John

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Heald, Sir Lionel

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Storey, S.

Heath, Edward

Marples, A. E.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Maude, Angus

Summers, G. S.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Sutcliffe, H.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Hollis, M. C.

Mellor, Sir John

Teeling, W.

Hope, Lord John

Molson, A. H. E.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Horobin, I. M.

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Tilney, John

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Oakshott, H. D.

Turner, H. F. L.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Odey, G. W.

Vane, W. M. F.

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)

Vosper, D. F.

Hurd, A. R.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hondon, N.)

Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Osborne, C.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Partridge, E.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Kaberry, D.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Wills, G.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Pitman, I. J.

Wood, Hon. R.

Lambton, Viscount

Powell, J. Enoch

York, C.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Leather, E. H. C.

Profumo, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Shudholme.

NOES

Adams, Richard

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Forman, J. C.

Albu, A. H.

Champion, A. J.

Freeman, John (Watford)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Chapman, W. D.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Collick, P. H.

Gibson, C. W.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Glanville, James

Bartley, P.

Cove, W. G.

Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Bence, C. R.

Daines, P.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Benn, Wedgwood

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Grey, C. F.

Benson, G.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Grimond, J.

Beswick, F.

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Bing, G. H. C.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Blackburn, F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Deer, G.

Hamilton, W. W.

Blyton, W. R.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Hannan, W.

Boardman, H.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hargreaves, A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Edelman, M.

Hastings, S.

Bowden, H. W.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Hayman, F. H.

Bowles, F. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Brockway, A. F.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Hobson, C. R.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Ewart, R.

Holman, P.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fernyhough, E.

Holt, A. F.

Burke, W. A.

Field, W. J.

Houghton, Douglas

Burton, Miss F. E.

Fienburgh, W.

Hubbard, T. F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Finch, H. J.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Follick, M.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Carmichael, J.

Foot, M. M.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

2182

2183

Hynd, J. B. (Altercliffe)

Padley, W. E.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Paget, R. T.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pargiter, G. A.

Swingler, S. T.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Parker, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Paton, J.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Peart, T. F.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Hum, S.)

Popplewell, E.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Keenan, W.

Porter, G.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Kenyon, C.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Proctor, W. T.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Timmons, J.

Kinley, J.

Rankin, John

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Reeves, J.

Viant, S. P.

Lewis, Arthur

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Wade, D. W.

Lindgren, G. S.

Rhodes, H.

Watkins, T. E.

MacColl, J. E.

Richards, R.

Weitzman, D.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wells, William (Walsall)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Mann, Mr. Jean

Ross, William

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Manuel, A. C.

Royle, C.

Wigg, George

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Wilkins, W. A.

Mayhew, C. P.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Mellish, R. J.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Williams, David (Neath)

Mikardo, Ian

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Mitchison, G. R.

Short, E. W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Moody, A. S.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Morley, R.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Mort, D. L.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Murray, J. D.

Sorensen, R. W.

Nally, W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Sparks, J. A.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

Oliver, G. H.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Question, put and agreed to.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I claim that the main Question be now put.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
10.22 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of
2184
December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

  SCHEDULE
  Defence (General) Regulations, 1939
  Regulation two BA (Control of explosives).
  Regulation sixteen (Stopping up or diversion of highways for purposes of open-cast coal).
  Regulation thirty-three (Exemption of certain women from Acts relating to midwives).
  Regulation forty-five A (Issue of identity cards to seamen).
  Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces).
  Regulation sixty C (Amendment of s. 4 of Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926).
  Regulation seventy-six (Handling and conveyance of ammunition, &c., in ports).
  Regulation eighty-two (False documents and false statements).
  Regulation eighty-three (Obstruction).
  Regulation eighty-four (Restrictions on disclosing information).
  Regulation eighty-five (Entry upon, and inspection of, land).
  Regulation eighty-seven (Permits, licences, &c.).
  Regulation eighty-eight (Fees for permits, licences, &c.).
  Regulation eighty-nine (Use of force in entering premises).
  Regulations ninety to ninety-three and ninety-five to one hundred and five (which

  2185
  contain general, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).
  The Third Schedule (Manner of instituting proceedings).
  Other Defence Regulations
  Regulations seventeen E and twenty of the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940.
  Parts I, II and III, Regulations twenty-five A, twenty-six, twenty-eight A, twenty-nine and thirty, and Schedules I, II and VI of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.
  Parts I and II and Schedule I of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1940.
  Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.
  Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.
  Regulations one and two and paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.
  The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
  The Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, 1940, except Regulations eight and nine thereof.
  This matter can be put quite shortly, and I would point out that the procedure involved is the same as in the case of the first Motion, except that the Order in Council to be made in pursuance of the Address does not require to be laid before Parliament after it is made, because in this case it is a question of retaining the powers set out in the Schedule to the Motion on the Order Paper.
  Since the House last considered the matter contained in this Motion, two Regulations of this kind—Regulation 20AB and 60CC, relating to identity cards—and one whole code of Regulations—the Regulations of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Defence—have been revoked. It is now proposed to discontinue the seven separate Regulations and the three codes of Regulations which are set out on page 5 of the White Paper.
  Again, three further Regulations and one code of Regulations will be revoked on the passing of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but in the meanwhile they must continue in force, and this is provided for in the Motion before the House. It is also proposed that the powers shall be continued for one further year, and what I said on the last Motion also applies here, that it will be open to the Government
  2186
  to propose the revocation of any of the Instruments in question at any time.
  In view of the fact that a number of separate powers are covered by Amendments, I am dealing with this matter shortly. I have set out what I hope are the essential facts.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  I move this Motion in order to ascertain from the Government what their intentions are with regard to the continuation of the present Sitting. We have had an amiable debate on the first Motion, with as near to a satisfactory result in the Division Lobby as one could have expected at this hour of the evening. It is evident from the figures that there is no enthusiasm on the other side of the House for the Motion which has been submitted to the House. I have no doubt that the telephone wires are now burning.
  I should have thought that, as we have disposed of the first Motion, it might be possible to arrange for a rising of the House at a time which would not unduly inconvenience anyone. In view of the way in which the debate has so far been conducted, I hope that the Leader of the House will feel able to make a reasonably satisfactory response to the appeal which I have made to him.
  10.26 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and, although I have not been able to hear all the debate this evening, the fact remains that we are offering more time on Thursday next week. The Government must get the debate on these Addresses concluded by then.
  Mr. Ede: Not "by then"; "then."
  Mr. Crookshank: We must get the Addresses concluded in the time allotted today and next Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I had to say that there was some other Government business which would also have to be taken that night. I also pointed out that tonight, in order to get on with the Transport Bill proceedings, we must get the Report stage of the Money Resolution, which may be formal for all I know.

  2187
  I do not think there is any reason why we should be particularly late tonight.
  To some extent I am in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows what our intentions are. We have offered next Thursday for an extension, and that has never taken place before. The normal procedure all the time he was in office, and last year, was that this debate took only one day, but in view of the interest shown in this—and rightly shown; I am not complaining about it—we made it possible for the debate to be continued next Thursday. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it would be more convenient not to sit very late tonight and to take more of the business next Thursday, perhaps we could have a little consultation afterwards behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. I recognise that we have had one very late Sitting this week, though not through any fault of the Government, and we also know that late Sittings on Thursdays are not universally welcome because so many hon. Gentlemen have to go to their constituencies on Thursday nights.
  If the right hon. Gentleman would like to have a word with me about how far it is reasonable to go tonight, I should be glad to discuss it with him, but I must make it clear that we desire to get the Report stage of the Transport Bill Money Resolution and that we must conclude the debate on this subject by Thursday next week as well as taking whatever else may be outstanding, although it may not be very much and we may have cleared it up before then, as I announced earlier today. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, we might as well continue for a little longer now and clear up some of what we have to do before we get to the end of these debates.
  Mr. Ede: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. Do not let anyone try to apportion the blame for late Sittings. It can pretty generally often be shared by both sides, and I am not going to accept the view that it was not the Government's fault the other night. But, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think we could have a few minutes conversation, and I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: While I appreciate the value of these conversations which take place behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, this is a matter for Parliament, and I thought the House had seldom been treated to a more cynical speech than that from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. It would be quite wrong for us to part from this Motion without condemning that cynicism. The right hon. Gentleman has been lecturing the country and the House of Commons for years on the need for giving proper examination of these Regulations. His argument was that nothing was more important than this. Now his argument is that it must be subordinated to a great deal of other business which is quite unimportant and quite unnecessary at this time. It would be wrong for us to decide just like that without giving a little consideration to the priorities and what hon. Gentlemen opposite consider to be the right way Parliament is to exercise its time. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of his words two years ago, when he said:
  "I do not know what Administration will be here in 12 months' time …"
  I suppose he did not have the success of his own party in mind, but it happened to be him. He served notice on the Administration:
  "we expect the Administration to make a firm review of these Orders, rules and Regulations and to say which ought to be made at once a matter for legislation—some very important legislation and some eminently suitable for Fridays. If there is no change at all in 12 months' time, then the House of Commons will be very critical of the Administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2517.]
  I think it is the duty of the House of Commons to take advantage of this Motion to be very critical of the Administration, and to say that this is a real and a large scale organised hypocrisy. That was what hon. Gentlemen said when in opposition, and now, when in power, they suggest the whole thing can be dispensed with by some little conversation behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. I have still to learn that democracy functions. [Interruption.] I am not ashamed to admit it, nor was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because he admitted that the Speaker's Handbook had been written in complete ignorance of the true facts. He did not

  2189
  only learn the facts about prosecutions, but the party also learnt from a speech from the Lord Chancellor that dogs were not able to read. These facts were not apparent to them up till then.
  To come back to the question, I have still to learn that the processes of democracy take place on the far side of Mr. Speaker's Chair. They take place on this side. If there is going to be discussions of this sort, then the Leader of the House should tell the House what he thinks. He should come out and say, "I made a mistake when I said we should discuss them fully. When we asked for the people's vote this was a stupid mistake. We have all learned the facts of life. We have learned that dogs cannot read and there were no prosecutions." That was the sort of thing we should argue out, and I hope we shall have some contribution from the Liberal Party on it.
  There are many hon. Gentlemen sitting in this House who made a bargain with the Tory Party on the strength of this promise that they were going to deal with controlled legislation. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), and there is no more honourable Member in this House, would never have agreed to an arrangement by which he went forward and got the Conservative vote if he had not really believed what they said in "Britain Strong and Free," if he had not really believed that they were going to carry out their promise.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think this is going a little beyond the Motion.
  Mr. Bing: With respect, I am about to address myself exactly to the issue with which I am dealing, as to whether or not there should be sufficient time given by the Government for this matter, even though it means the abandonment of the Transport Bill Guillotine. And it is only right that the Liberal Members should have the right to say, and their constituents demand that they should say—or I hope they do if there are any Liberal constituents left—whether they are going to facilitate tonight the passage of legislation dealing with all these rules and controls, against which they conducted their campaign in order—[interruption.] Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to interrupt me?
  Mr. Clement Davies: I merely wanted to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I hope to be invited by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to accompany him behind the Speaker's Chair.
  Mr. Bing: That would be a very good arrangement indeed. All of us could, no doubt, stake a claim to be present at this conference. But I do not think that was what the Leader of the House had in mind. Perhaps we might hear from him as to how many are to be invited. Are the Liberal Party to be excluded, or are they to be allowed to come in and discuss for a few moments the one thing on which they agreed that they would go in with the Conservative Party and give them their votes?
  The question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should answer on this side of the Chair is whether or not, as the Leader of the Liberal Party, he is going to be a party to an arrangement by which the House is able to discuss Supplies and Services—according to his own election address a most important issue—late at night in order to give time for a Guillotine Motion? Is that Liberalism? If that is Liberalism, there ought to be at least one other speech made on this Adjournment Motion expressing the new Liberal doctrine towards this point of view.
  It really is quite an impossible position. I hope I shall have the support of some of my hon. Friends on this. The Leader of the House has said for years how important are these controls and that adequate time should be given for their discussion and that they should not be pushed through. In a moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall put a point of order to you, and if I indicate it now it might assist the right hon. Gentleman in his conclusion as to when this debate should be adjourned. I do not know whether you or Mr. Speaker have made any decision about what Amendments are to be selected. But if not, if there is any Amendment to leave out any Regulation—
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the point about the conference behind the Speaker's Chair, will he make a plea that both parties on his own side of the House be invited to it?
  Mr. Bing: I am perfectly prepared to make that plea. I should like to see the Liberal Party represented at this conference. And if I have the support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman I am very glad. I am glad that we have some support for the Liberal Party, even from the other side of the House. Therefore, before I continue with what I was about to say, may I just put this proposal to the Leader of the House, that the Liberal Party be invited to join this conference, and that a unanimous decision be secured. They should not be ignored just because there happens to be a few of them and most of them happen to have got in on Conservative votes.
  My second argument about why it would be desirable to adjourn the debate is that it may well be that some Amendments have not been selected. If that is so, then there will be no opportunity of discussing some of these matters. As has been said, as these Regulations have all to be continued by means of a Schedule, there is no arrangement for a Prayer to be put down. It would be wrong for the House to lose Parliamentary control over these matters. It appears to me that the simplest answer would be to secure from the Chair, if possible, some knowledge about which Amendments will be called and which will not, if any such distinction is to be made.
  Hon. Members could then prepare themselves to address the House on the Motion in regard to those Regulations mentioned in the Amendments which are not to be called. Otherwise, we shall have no means of discussing those Regulations and I am certain that that is the last thing which the Home Secretary would desire. He and his right hon. Friends have been addressing audiences up and down the country asking that they should have the opportunity to see that Parliament should discuss every one of these Regulations.
  I was not so ill-mannered as to remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was a little bit in difficulties, of his pamphlet, "What do you think about bureaucracy?" Had I done so, he would have recalled at once that one of the comments he made was that Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing every Regulation. I am sure that the Home Secretary does not want to take advantage of some technicality in
  2192
  the affairs of the House—some technicality in the rules—which would exclude discussion of a number of important Regulations.
  In many cases circumstances have changed and different conditions apply in respect of the Regulations. For instance, one could refer to midwives and why we should prolong that Regulation when so few midwives are affected. The issue is quite different from what it was last time this question was discussed. Supposing that were not one of the Regulations mentioned in the Amendments selected, then there would be a debate ranging over midwives and the various other somewhat disjointed subjects not subject to special debate.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going rather beyond the Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned." He is anticipating what we are going to do.
  Mr. Bing: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the decision not to adjourn the debate and that he will bear in mind that hon. Members on this side of the House are determined to put their constitutional duties before the convenience of some right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting on the Front Bench opposite. If we find that our constitutional duties conflict with what they think is the proper arrangement of business, we shall put our constitutional duties first.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. James Hudson: I am most anxious to take advantage of the suggestion that we might have what I think was called "a short time of conversation." There is serious ground for me wishing to speak now. A most friendly offer has been made to me tonight from the other side of the House. I was to have the key of the wine cellar. The hon. Gentleman who suggested that from the benches opposite was told that the key might prove to be a hatchet if I got it. Indeed, I am waiting anxiously to use not a key but a hatchet. I hope that we shall be able to discuss one matter which is of such a character that it puts the Tory Party in a hopeless situation.
  I am only suggesting in a few friendly words why it is advisable to adjourn. I am going to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed the

  2193
  whole Tory Party on one of the issues from which the Tory Party is running away tonight. I am going to show, further, that the Tory Party is bound hand and foot to the liquor trade. The liquor trade has been sending round telegrams. Hon. Members are at this moment being dragged up by telephone. Hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber are none too sure of the situation which will arise through Regulation 55C and other matters. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen on the other side that it is in their interest that we should be willing to adjourn this debate at this moment.
  Mr. George Odey: Will the hon. Member be kind enough to inform me what is in the telegram, because I have not received it?
  Mr. Hudson: If I am the only one—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whatever the contents of the telegram, I do not see how it affects whether we adjourn.
  Mr. Hudson: I am just offering friendly advice to hon. Members opposite that there is a case, from their own point of view, for an adjournment at this moment in order that they may get their cohorts up on a more convenient occasion. I want to get this thing discussed in the light of day when proper attention can be given to it. I hope the suggestion that there should be an adjournment now can be accepted, as we may get on better with the matter at the time to which I thought the right hon. Gentleman was feeling his way, namely, some time next week.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. Crookshank: If I may reply by leave of the House, I would reiterate that I am trying to meet the general convenience of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested that we should now adjourn the debate. In reply, I said that we had allocated Thursday, subject to the necessary business being obtained afterwards, for the purpose. I thought perhaps that we could discuss it to see whether the Opposition had views on how best to allocate matters between the two days. One hon. Member has said that he had still to learn this and that. If he is successful enough to get on to the Front
  2194
  Bench he will still have to learn that it is quite a normal procedure, when there is the possibility of a late Sitting, to see whether some accommodation can be reached for the general advantage.
  No one wants to sit unduly late. Everyone wants adequate time to discuss this. I was only pointing out that we have already, according to records of previous debates on this subject, outrun the normal time given to it in any year since the war. It is not a case of a weak Opposition, but rather that in the past the Opposition has recognised the facts. I am not complaining about the matters being discussed. I am merely making the point that more time has been used; and by the statement I made at Question Time still more time is available next week.
  The right hon. Gentleman did, in fact, respond to my suggestion that we should see how far it would be for the general convenience of the House that we should go tonight, and how much should be left for the next occasion on which the matter comes up. We have already given sufficient time. We are offering twice the time which any Government, including that of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, ever offered for this purpose. I think that, on the whole, the House will probably think we have given a generous allocation.
  What we are now discussing is not the general allocation, but the sub-division within the general allocation—how far we should discuss this matter tonight and how far next Thursday. I think I have the right hon. Gentleman with me. That is why I suggested that, for these few minutes, we should deal with that position, come back to the House and make some agreed suggestions. I thought that, in the meantime, we could get on with the matters which hon. Gentlemen are so anxious to discuss, and make some progress now.
  As the right hon. Gentleman sought to withdraw the Motion, I hope it will be withdrawn, and that we can see how far it is reasonable to go tonight. That is all that I think the circumstances require me to say. I do not think I can make a more generous offer, and I hope that it will be accepted in the spirit in which it is made.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little ingenuous when he referred to the party opposite, when in Opposition, as knowing the facts. The last speech which we heard from the Despatch Box told us that the only reference to these Regulations in their Election literature, which was precisely the opposite of what they are asking now, was because they did not then know the facts.
  But, to deal with the issue now before us, the right hon. Gentleman told us that there was no discussion as to the general allocation of time; the only discussion was as to how the time should be allocated within the general allocation of time. The suggestion has been made that this debate should be adjourned now, and that we should proceed on Thursday to deal with the second Motion. That is the suggestion which has been made from these benches, and I want to ask why, publicly in the House, the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us whether or not he accepts that proposal.
  I am in the greatest difficulty. Of course, there is often convenience in consultations behind the Chair, but why here? The proposition seems to me so simple. The right hon. Gentleman has, in his wisdom, allocated two days to this, and he says that he does not mind how the time is allocated between those two days. We suggest that the Adjournment should be moved now, and it is for him to say whether he agrees with that or not, and whether we should go on. We are very willing to do so, but it is for him to make up his mind about it.
  I would point this out to him, because it is a matter of very great importance. We do not know yet if any of the Amendments to the Schedule which we have put down have been selected. If any have not been selected, we shall take the opportunity to discuss the not selected ones on the Motion. If we proceed with the Motion, not knowing which Amendments are selected and which are not, we shall find that we are discussing a great many on the Motion which could be more conveniently discussed when they are called as Amendments. Surely, there is every argument of convenience for taking this interval and deciding at this point, whether it is convenient to deal
  2196
  with the various items which arise during this debate.
  Why cannot we be told? Is that convenient to the Government or is it not, because they certainly seem as a Government to deal with this matter of Regulations with a great deal of contempt. After all, on the last Motion they asked the House to renew a great many Regulations, the business of a large number of Departments, but they did not put up a single spokeman from those Departments to tell us why these Regulations were needed or why they were not. Not one spokesman from the Departments concerned was put up.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can discuss something on which the House has already come to a decision.
  Mr. Bing: Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is in order for my hon. and learned Friend to suggest—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My Ruling was that we cannot discuss something on which the House has already come to a decision, and therefore nothing further can be said on the matter.
  Mr. Bing Mr. Bing rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is my Ruling, that the House, having come to a decision on the matter, the Motion cannot be further discussed, and it is not going to be further discussed.
  Mr. Paget: I would not dream of debating over again that which has already been debated. The only thing I am pointing out is that I hope that the second half of this debate will be more satisfactory than the one we have already had. On the first Motion, quite obviously, the Government were not fully briefed. Their Front Bench spokesman told us quite frankly that they had not the faintest idea what were the powers for which they were asking. I am suggesting that that is a very good reason for adjourning so that when they come to deal with the next lot they may be fully briefed and may have some idea what they are talking about and be in a position to give the House proper information as to the powers for which they are asking and which this Opposition insist on hearing, instead of going through the performance which we had before when they were unbriefed and quite

  2197
  ignorant and quite unable to give information for which we asked.
  I very respectfully submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that those are good reasons for pressing the Motion to adjourn the debate. One has to consider when it will be more convenient to deal with the other half, and it will certainly be very much more expeditious to deal with it when the Government are in a position to answer the questions which will be asked. They were not in a position to do so before. Therefore, let them take the opportunity of the time till next Thursday to get to know something about the business they are conducting.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on the question of whether this debate should be adjourned. It is really extraordinary that the Leader of the House should appeal to us to be reasonable in discussing these Regulations when we know full well that were we to comply with his request we should find ourselves faced with another Allocation of Time Order. The procedure of this House has now been—
  Mr. Crookshank: There is no question of an Allocation of Time Order in anything I have said. The question of allocating time in two days was an unofficial phrase which I was throwing out to the right hon. Gentleman. It must certainly not be regarded as a technical term in anything I have said tonight.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is a little sensitive on this. I was speaking about the Allocation of Time Order on Monday.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is so, then it is out of order now.
  Mr. Benn: The point I am making, very simply, is that as an Opposition it is our responsibility to examine the Regulations presented to this House as fully as we feel necessary.
  It really is no use the Leader of the House coming to us and taking time, whether today or on Thursday when we know that Parliamentary procedure is now revised so that every Bill after First
  2198
  reading is guillotined on the Second reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. It is not reasonable that we should have to do what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said should have been done over the past six years, and then be prevented from so doing it.
  I should like to refer to a very important contribution made by Mr. Speaker, when a Member, when the Transitional Powers Bill was presented, in 1947. He said then:
  "How difficult it must be even now for the practitioners of the law to know the shape and form of the law of England, and how hopeless it is for ordinary people nowadays to know when they are on the right or the wrong side of the law. In the words of the Prayer Book, the ordinary citizen can say:
  'Lord, who knoweth how oft he offendeth,'."—
  [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 2143.]
  I only mention that to show—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] If it is a breach of the traditions of the House to call in the name of Mr. Speaker in this respect, I most sincerely apologise. Perhaps I may presume to say that that view is one that I share myself.
  I find it a little surprising that the Leader of the House should have joined with his hon. Friends so often in saying that time was inadequate for the discussion of these Regulations and then, when we do discuss them, to say that we have already had more time than ever before, when the whole burden of his argument at the Election was that the time in the past had been inadequate.
  I recommend my hon. Friends, as an individual, that those interested in specific Regulations should oppose the adjournment of this debate and that those not concerned with specific Regulations should go home—and should not offer the convenience of normal arrangements to hon. Members on the other side who, in the past, have always demonstrated their anxiety to be present when these Regulations have been discussed. I cannot see how the Leader of the House can expect us to co-operate with him over these Regulations when, next week—and, no doubt the week after—we shall have to devote a whole day to gagging ourselves.
  11.2 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I have a particular point to put to the Leader of the House which involves a request and a question to him. He will have noted that there are six and a half pages of Amendments on the Order Paper and the question is whether we shall tonight, or even soon, discuss each and every one of them. This information—from any source whatsoever—would be most useful to all of us. The three hon. Members from Stoke had made arrangements to be here at 11 o'clock tomorrow—needless to say, they are in a minority now so far as the feeling of the House is concerned.
  I am sure that the Leader of the House should give the House an opportunity of full discussion on every point raised. I think he must agree that the criticism of the Opposition, so far as the Government is concerned, is a very simple matter. It falls into two parts. On the one hand there are the orders that we feel should have been revoked but still remain on the Statute Book and those which, while remaining on the Statute Book should, we feel, be revoked. We feel that we have an absolute right to ask for full and proper discussion but, in particular, all of us would like to know what is to happen before next Thursday and, if possible, tonight.
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I feel that the Government should consider favourably the suggestion that we should at this stage adjourn the debate. We have, after all, spent much time already today discussing delegated legislation. Without trespassing on the Ruling you have already given, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) I would say only that it did appear from some of the replies we got that the Members of the Government replying to the House on the Regulations were not entirely fresh and alert in their approach to the problem. Is it reasonable, therefore, at this late hour of the night to embark on what must be not only a serious but a very varied discussion?
  If we glance for only a moment at the type of Regulations which we shall now be embarking on, and their range,
  2200
  not only in importance, as in the number of the persons affected, but in their subject matter, ranging from the use of land for the Forces to minor matters affecting certain permits, topics ranging as variously as from explosives to margarine, we see that, in consequence, we have in front of us a various array of Ministers. It is one of the advantages, perhaps, if it be an advantage, of discussions of this kind, that we are able to get a representative sample of the Government all at once there on the Treasury Bench, in a way that happens very rarely on any other Measures. And so there they all are, each with his own little prepared piece on his own Regulation, waiting for it to come forward.
  If we go on now some will be in the most jaded and depressed state before it comes to their time, and we really shall not get the matters discussed with that freshness, vigour and alertness which is necessary if the House is to give serious consideration to this matter. The Leader of the House has compared this with what happened when the late Government were in power, but surely there must be given consideration occasionally to the alleged political philosophy of his own party, and one of the views they have put forward very frequently is that it is of the greatest importance for the House to give the most careful scrutiny to delegated legislation.
  That is one part of their beliefs. Another part of their beliefs is that, on the whole, the less legislation we have, the better—that appears to have the agreement of the Under-Secretary of State for Air—the less legislation we have the better, a point of view put before us very eloquently earlier by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who, I am sorry to say, is no longer with us. If we add those two points, that the less legislation we have the better, and that the House ought to give the most careful scrutiny to delegated legislation, surely they add up to this conclusion, that the Government should without any hesitation say now, "It is quite unreasonable to begin this important discussion of examining the whole of this varied chapter of delegated legislation at a time when the Ministers are obviously not in their best and freshest form."
  If, as a result, some of the legislation had to be dropped, what does that matter

  2201
  to the party opposite? They have now shown that they are not attached to the idea that we should try to get a lot of legislation through in a Session. Here is an opportunity for them to do two things in which they believe—to allow time for the scrutiny of delegated legislation, even if it postpones legislation, for they do not think it is desirable to bring forward too much legislation of any kind in one Session. So let us proceed, as, I am sure, they would wish to do, at a pace, perhaps more leisurely, but also with greater regard for the importance of the variety of the business before us, and the convenience, health and general welfare of the array of Ministers we see before us on the Front Bench.
  11.9 p.m
  Mr. Ede: By leave of the House. I regret having to intervene again. I made the proposal to adjourn some half an hour or more ago now. I want this to be made quite clear. I resent very much the suggestion that if I get behind the Speaker's Chair with the right hon. Gentleman I should make a deal with regard to next Thursday's business that would be not in accordance with the wishes of this party. I was anxious that hon. Members, irrespective of party, should be put to as little inconvenience as possible tonight. I made a recommendation from my position here, which I did not think merited the reception it received in certain quarters.
  My advice to the House still is, if I may be allowed to tender it, that we should agree that this Motion to adjourn should not be carried at this stage, but that there should be an opportunity of seeing how the convenience of hon. Members could be met. I must say that I think voluntary agreements entered into—and I have more than once expressed from both sides of the House my willingness to enter into voluntary agreements—are far better than fixed Motions, which prevent, sometimes, proper points being developed at a particular time when the House has decided that something has to stop.
  I hope it may be possible yet to make some arrangements with regard to tonight that may meet general convenience.
  Question put, and negatived.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move—
  Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Is not the first Amendment to delete Regulation 2BA, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend, the Member for Edmonton (Mr. A. Albu), to be called?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker did not select that Amendment.
  Mr. Paget: With great respect, I gave notice of this point to Mr. Speaker. The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend deals with a specific Regulation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker's selection cannot be queried or talked about at all. This Amendment is not selected, and nothing more can be done in the matter.
  Mr. Paget: I gave notice to Mr. Speaker that I would be raising this point. My point, which I shall develop in a moment, is that Mr. Speaker has no power of selection under this Act.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow anyone to say that. Under the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker has the power of selection of Amendments to the Motions.
  Mr. Paget: My submission will be that the Act does provide for it. Section 7 of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, provides as follows:
  "If at any time while any Defence Regulations specified in Part II or Part III of the First Schedule to this Act, or any enactments contained in Part I of the Act of 1946."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very reluctant to stop the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not a lawyer, but I am governed by the Standing Orders of the House. Standing Order 31 reads:
  "In respect of any motion, or in respect of any bill under consideration either in a committee of the whole House or on report, Mr. Speaker, or in a committee the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy Chairman, shall have power to select the new clauses or amendments to be proposed, and may, if he thinks fit, call upon any member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the object of the amendment as may enable him to form a judgment upon it."
  This Amendment has not been selected, it has not been called, and the matter will not be further discussed.
  Mr. Paget: The matter to which you refer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given my Ruling as clearly as I can, and I now call the hon. and learned Member for Kettering.
  Mr. Bing Mr. Bing rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given my Ruling, and nothing more can be said.
  Mr. Bing: I was going to address you on another point.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Nothing more can be said. Mr. Mitchison.
  Mr. Bing: May I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Would it be possible for you to indicate to the House which Amendments are likely to be selected? Hon. Members are in this difficulty. As I understand the position, we are entitled to discuss at some stage the Motion, either as it has been amended or unamended. The difficulty is that this is the only occasion on which we can discuss these Regulations; they are not subject to Prayer, and if an Amendment is not selected—and I am not arguing that point at all—the only way in which we can discuss it is, as it were, on the main Question when we are dealing with it as a whole.
  Therefore, if you could indicate at what stage there will be some general discussion on the Motion after such Amendments as are selected have been disposed of, then those who are interested in matters which are raised or will be raised by the Motion, and which are not discussable on any Amendment, would be able to prepare themselves for that occasion and to speak at that time. I think it would be for general convenience if it were possible to indicate the Amendments that are to be called, for then we could see how best to fit our discussion in on the other matters.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I quite appreciate the point the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, but he will realise that I am only Deputy, and therefore I might prejudice something which Mr. Speaker may wish to do on his return to the Chair, which would inconvenience him. As is well known, hon. Members do come to me and have an indication from me here, quite unofficially, what the intentions are, but I should be very reluctant to say in advance what Mr. Speaker intends to do. I am sorry, but I am not my own master in this matter.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: In that case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would it be possible for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to raise the point he sought to introduce a moment ago, but which you in your wisdom decided to rule against and to hear no further argument about? Perhaps I might put this to you. I understand that when my hon. and learned Friend put this to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker indicated to him that it was a fit and proper matter for him to raise when these particular Amendments were reached. In that case, and had you not been in the Chair, it would have been open for my hon. and learned Friend to raise it. If he now loses his right to do so—and this point really is one of substance—hon. Members on this side of the House, as you can very properly see, may feel aggrieved. Would it be open to my hon. and learned Friend to raise this point when Mr. Speaker takes the Chair presently, seeing that you yourself feel that you cannot entertain it?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot answer for what Mr. Speaker will do on his return to the Chair. I am sorry. Mr. Mitchison.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Further to that point of order. I understand the reasons why you feel you cannot indicate to us at this moment which of the Amendments are going to be called, but you did not answer the other point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). That is to say, you did not indicate at what point those of us who have put down Amendments which may not be called will have an opportunity of discussing them on the main Question. Could you make that clear to us?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The main Question will not be put until the Amendments are disposed of. I may or may not be in the Chair then, and I cannot possibly give a Ruling in advance. If I am in the Chair when the time comes, that is a different matter, but I cannot say in advance. I am only Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Mitchison: By the Amendment to leave out Regulation 16, we seek to leave out from the process of continuation Regulation 16, which deals with the stopping up or diversion of highways for the purposes of opencast coal—or at any

  2205
  rate, it is so described in the Motion. When we look at Regulation 16 in the form in which we have been invited to look at it in the handbook of Defence Regulations, we find that it appears to provide for the stopping up or diversion of highways, not only for the purposes of opencast coal, but also, when it is considered necessary, for the purpose of
  "constructing or extending an electricity generating station."
  This Regulation has had quite a history, and I must in one sense apologise, and in another not particularly apologise for referring the House to the more recent part of that history. In October, 1950, when a similar Motion was brought forward by the Labour Government to extend various Regulations, including this one, a Motion was put from those on the benches opposite to discontinue it. I wish to quote from some of the arguments which were put forward then and to adapt some part of them.
  Mr. Paget: On a point of order. When your predecessor, Sir, was in the Chair I sought to raise a point of order of which I had given you notice. Your predecessor ruled that it was something which he could not deal with. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) indicated that it would be raised with you on your return. My point is this: the first Amendment to the Schedule, which deals with an entire Regulation, was not selected. My submission is that for two reasons there is no power of selection in dealing with the schedule of this Motion. If I may first refer to Section 7 of the Emergency Powers (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1947 it states:
  "If at any time while any Defence Regulation specified in Part II or Part III of the First Schedule of this Act, or any enactments contained in Part I of the Act of 1946, are in force, an Address is presented to His Majesty by each House of Parliament praying that this …"
  Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: I can only take one point of order at a time.
  Mr. Paget:
  "… by each House of Parliament praying that those Regulations or enactments, or any of them"—
  2206
  And these are the important words:
  "should be continued in force for a further period not exceeding one year from the time at which they would otherwise expire, His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the Regulations or enactments to which the Address relates shall continue in force for that further period."
  The schedule to the Motion put forward in pursuance of that Section is a separate exercise of the power provided by it for each item which is put down. It is a power to renew each item and the words which were used in the debate when the Bill, now an Act, was read a Second time were seriatim. That, in my submission, is just what Section 7 says.
  If I may refer to the Standing Order 28, in which the powers of selection are set out, I agree that the Standing Order is in wide terms, but it is subject to the practice which can be found in Erskine May on page 455 which reads:
  "This power is exercised by the chair in such a way as to bring out the salient points of criticism, to prevent repetition and overlapping, and, where several amendments deal with the same point, to choose the more effective and the better drafted."
  This Amendment deals with an entirely separate matter, a Regulation whose subject matter is totally different from anything else which is appearing here. Therefore, in my submission, we cannot bring out salient points of criticism by omitting the only thing upon which criticism can be directed. We cannot prevent repetition and overlapping, because there cannot be repetition and overlapping in dealing with a different Regulation on a different subject.
  On this Motion there can be only one Amendment, and that is to omit, which is the method provided by the Act for giving notice of that particular Regulation if the House wishes to discuss it. In my submission, there can be no power of selection here, where the House is simply exercising its right given it by the Act to put a particular Regulation down for discussion.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. He did mention it to me, and I am obliged to him for doing so. But, in fact, his point is directly contrary to the words of the Standing Order which governs the power of the Chair to select Amendments, that is Standing Order No. 31, and not No. 28, as the hon. and learned Gentleman, I

  2207
  think in error, mentioned. The words are quite clear. It says:
  "In respect of any motion … Mr. Speaker or … the Chairman … shall have power to select the new clauses or amendments to be proposed …".
  There is nothing in the legislation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred me which is against that in the slightest.
  He referred me to Section 7 of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Powers) Act which provides that if a prayer or an Address is presented to His Majesty by each House of Parliament a certain consequence will ensue. But such an Address cannot be presented to His Majesty save on the Resolution of the House and such a Resolution could not be passed except in decision of a Question proposed from the Chair and therefore the power given to the Chair in selecting Amendments in Standing Order No. 31 is quite wide.
  I may say that it is not customary for the Chair to give reasons for the selection of Amendments and I do not do so. But I go through the Amendments with great care, and it is my duty to choose those which I think are of most substance and of most importance to both sides of the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will review fairly the selections I have made he will see that the Opposition rights have been fully safeguarded.
  Mrs. Castle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While not wishing in any way to challenge your Ruling on this matter, may I ask you what opportunities are open for those of us who are concerned at the continuance of some of these Regulations, and have down Amendments which you may not see fit to call, of drawing the attention of the House to the dangers which we think will result from the continuance of the Regulations?
  Mr. Speaker: The answer to that is that there is a general debate on the main Question when questions of that sort may be raised.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  My only endeavour is to try to suit the convenience of hon. Members in all quarters of the House. The Government
  2208
  are prepared to have this debate adjourned on the understanding that, as I announced after Questions today, it will be brought to a conclusion next Thursday as well as the other business which I detailed. I hope that that is agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I move the Motion on the understanding that on Thursday next we shall conclude this debate.
  Mr. Speaker: I have just re-entered the Chair after a short absence. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) finished his speech on the Amendment? The adjournment of the debate cannot be moved except in between speeches.
  Mr. Mitchison: I had only just begun it: I had not finished. If I might raise the matter as a point of order Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the law does not bother about very small matters. It was a very small beginning of a speech. Perhaps it was not heard, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I gather that he was moving an Amendment. It will require to be seconded formally.
  Mr. Mitchison: I think that, rather than have a formal Amendment, I had better explain it as succinctly as possible. I will put my point—
  Mr. Paget: On a point of order. My hon. and learned Friend had only just started his speech. Is not the position that when we resume he can resume his speech?
  Mr. Speaker: I have to put our proceedings in order. I am trying to safeguard the rights of hon. Members. It would be in order, if it is agreeable to the Government, if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House moved the adjournment of the House.
  Mr. Crookshank: I am rather at a loss. Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman in possession of the House should we resume the debate next Thursday? I moved "That the debate be now adjourned" on the understanding, which I hope will be honoured, that we conclude the debate next Thursday. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman would be in possession of the House, would he not, and everything would be in order? I

  2209
  hope that that is the position. I moved the adjournment of the debate, leaving whoever was in possession of the House to carry on next time, but I was doing that—and I want to have it confirmed—on the understanding that at our next resumption of this debate next Thursday we should conclude the debate and also get the other business which I announced for next Thursday.
  Mr. Frank Bowles: I should have thought that that was wrong, Mr. Speaker. I was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House moved "That the debate be now adjourned" or "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. Speaker: The Question is "That the debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. Bowles: I think you were right, Mr. Speaker, when you said that the right hon. Gentleman could not move that Motion while my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was on his feet. Then I thought that the right hon. Gentleman changed the Motion to the one "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. Crookshank: No.
  Mr. Bowles: Why not? That seems to be the solution.
  Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I moved the adjournment of the debate, not the adjournment of the House. I announced about half an hour ago that there was another item of business to be taken this evening. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) knows, it is not my normal function to move the Motion "That this House do now adjourn." That is usually left in other hands. I moved "That the debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. Bowles: I still do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is in order in moving "That the debate be now adjourned" so long as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is in possession of the House. I make that submission to you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had already moved "That the debate be now adjourned."
  Hon. Members: That Motion was negatived.
  Mr. Speaker: There have been two Motions for the adjournment of the debate. There must be some intervening proceeding which involves the moving and seconding of an Amendment. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has moved and withdrawn a Motion for the adjournment for the debate.
  Mr. Ede: That is not quite accurate, Mr. Speaker. That Motion was negatived, without a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: Before the adjournment can be moved again there must be some intervening proceeding, so I ask the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to move his Amendment formally, and that someone shall second it.
  11.36 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, to leave out Regulation 16 "(Stopping up or diversion of highways for purposes of open-cast coal)."
  I will put the matter as shortly as I can for the general convenience of the House. The points which I wish to raise are these. This Regulation appears, in its printed form, to cover the stopping up of highways for the purpose of mining opencast coal, and for purposes in connection with the erection of generating stations for electricity.
  The history of the matter is that when the Labour Government were in power, those who are now the Government, including particularly the Leader of the House and the Solicitor-General, pressed fervently for withdrawal of this Regulation so far as electricity generating stations were concerned. I am not quite clear what they meant, for I know of no power to amend this Regulation under this Act, though there is power to take that step under the Supplies and Services Act.
  That was the first step. The next step was for a similar request to be made to the present Government last year. It is clear, from the history of the matter, that this Regulation is no longer required, or used, in connection with electricity generating stations. If that is so, why retain this useless power as regards that matter when it can be dispensed with by

  2211
  taking this Regulation under the Supplies and Services Act and amending it to exclude that purpose?
  The next question is with regard to use of the Regulation for opencast coal mining purposes. We were told last year, I think by an hon. Member who is now the Parliamentary Secretary, that a saving in coal would be effected by the use of this Regulation instead of by stopping up or diverting highways under the Highways Act or the Town and Country Planning legislation, both of which are measures covering diversion or stopping up. That may be so. If that is so, surely it will continue to be so for some considerable time, and it would be a simple matter to put into a permanent form the power to stop up highways temporarily in connection with opencast coal mining. There is no real reason for not doing it. Surely it is wrong in principle and practice to continue an emergency power to deal with opencast coal mining requirements when these are likely to continue for some time. If, in fact, they are not likely to continue for long, the Regulation surely might be dispensed with.
  Lastly, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, or whoever is to reply, whether it is not the case that he knows that there is other opencast mining going on. Opencast mining for ironstone working goes on all over the country, particularly in my own constituency, and we have acres and acres devastated there, and path after path stopped up. Why is it necessary to have a special power for opencast coal mining if, in fact, opencast ironstone mining can be conducted on that scale without it? It seems to me that if opencast ironstone mining can be done in that way, it ought to be possible, somehow, to do exactly the same thing with opencast coal mining, which, if anything, presents rather simpler problems, because the area of ground disturbed in proportion to the product obtained is much higher in regard to ironstone than it is in regard to coal mining.
  I repeat my questions. Why has the Regulation not been amended so as not
  2212
  to relate to electricity generating stations? If it is to be continued, why should it not, for opencast coal mining purposes, be put into permanent legislation, since no one knows how long we hay have to go on with opencast coal mining? If we want it for opencast coal mining, why do we not want it for opencast ironstone mining; or, better still, if we can dispense with it for opencast ironstone mining, why cannot we dispense with it for opencast coal mining?
  Mr. Tom Brown: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Crookshank: I have already explained why I have moved, "That the debate be now adjourned" and I do not think I need say any more, unless it is absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Mitchison: In view of that Motion, shall I, in due course and at some time, receive a public answer to my questions?
  Mr. Speaker: That will not prejudice the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Ede: My personal position is now somewhat different from what it was a few minutes ago. I shall be in this building until 4.45 a.m., and I would sooner spend that time in the company of hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends, but I realise that they would not be as keen on my company at this hour as I am on theirs. Therefore, I waive all personal considerations in the matter.
  I would suggest to the House, and particularly to my hon. Friends, that it would be as well to accept the Motion which has been moved. Of course, this is exempted business. When we start next Thursday, it being exempted business, there is really no limit to the time to which the debate could be extended, but I am quite certain that, having due regard to the proper discharge of public business, it would be the desire of everyone to conduct such a debate in order to cause a minimum of discomfort to everybody concerned. I advise my hon. Friends to accept the Motion.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

TRANSPORT [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to require, amongst other things, the British Transport Commission to dispose of the property held by them for the purposes of the part of their undertaking which is carried on through the Road Haulage Executive, it is expedient to authorise the payment—

(a) out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section twenty-four of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, which is attributable to the institution of a transport levy treated for the purpose of collection and other connected purposes as if it were part of the excise duties under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949;

(ii) of sums estimated to be equal to the total amounts or additional amounts which, if the said excise duties had been chargeable in respect of Crown vehicles, would have been payable by way of the said transport levy under the said Act of the present Session in respect of vehicles used for the purposes of Government departments;

(iii) of temporary advances to any transport fund provided for by the said Act of the present Session not exceeding in all fifty thousand pounds;

(iv) of any increase in sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to amendments of section six of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883;

(v) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under subsection (4) of section one hundred and seven of the Transport Act, 1947, which is attributable to enabling persons to be appointed to act in the place of absent members of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal;

(vi) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport in the execution of the said Act of the present Session (including any charges and expenses of licensing authorities and other persons incurred in or by reason of the execution thereof which are directed under
2214
subsection (3) of section twenty-two of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to be paid as expenses of the roads department of the Ministry of Transport); and

(vii) of fees and allowances to referees and members of boards of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to pension rights of and compensation to officers and servants, and of allowances to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board;

(b) out of the Consolidated Fund, of any additional sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee of British transport stock or of any temporary loan raised by the said Commission by reason of provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) substituting for the existing limits on temporary borrowing by the Commission and on borrowing by the issue of transport stock otherwise than for the purposes specified in paragraphs (b) and (d) of subsection (2) of section eighty-eight of the Transport Act, 1947, a single limit of two hundred and seventy-five million pounds on the aggregate of the amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of any British transport stock issued otherwise than for the purposes specified in the said paragraph (d) or in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section eighty-nine of the Transport Act, 1947, and in respect of any temporary loans raised by the said Commission;

(ii) allowing the said Commission to borrow in excess of the said limit for the purpose of redeeming any British transport stock which they are required or entitled to redeem or of repaying any money temporarily borrowed by them;

(c) into the Exchequer—

(i) of repayments from the Transport Fund of the temporary advances referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of this resolution; and

(ii) of any increase in the sums falling to be paid into the Exchequer under subsection (2) of section one hundred and twenty-three of the Transport Act, 1947, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session.

BUILDING WORK CHARGES
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]
11.44 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: A few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) rendered a signal service to the House by raising the question of the London Builders' Conference, and the Minister of Works, who replied to that debate, was as forthright as my hon. Friend. Together, in my opinion, they saved the local authorities hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The question which I have to raise tonight deals with an entirely different issue—the national schedules of day work charges for general building work. The schedules as issued are described as follows:
"These schedules are authorised by agreement between the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and supersede the previous schedule authorised in 1933."
This is the copy as amended on 30th November, 1951. These schedules of charges are authorised only by agreement between the surveyors and the builders, and many members of the general public, quite understandably, associate authority with the word "authorised." They think there is a legal sanction for the charges which are being imposed by builders.
My first submission is that here we have a private combination to exploit the public in a period of national difficulty. It is true that it does not involve large contracts or affect local authorities or similar bodies, but it does affect very substantially the single householder or the small landlord who has to face the burden of repairing his property.
As hon. Members will know, there is an agitation under way by the National Property Owners' Association for increasing rents to enable landlords to meet the cost of repairs. I submit to the House that the issue of raising rents need never be accepted if the Government are prepared to intervene in this matter where the cost of building repairs is being inflated by greedy men.
Many people have a wrong impression as to why building repairs are costing so
2216
much at the present time. They believe that it is due to the cost of wages and materials. What they do not realise is that the rate of profit has gone up much more than either the cost of materials or the rate of wages. Bills sent out nowadays by builders for day work fulfilled usually include only a block amount for labour and material charges. The bills do not reveal the basis of assessment by which these charges are arrived at. Indeed, this matter has only now come to light to some of us in this House because one of my hon. Friends was persistent when he received what he considered to be an exorbitant bill for repairs done.
What is the basis of charging by the Federation of Building Trade Employers in conjunction with the chartered surveyors? First, the wages of the men concerned with the job are taken into account. These already allow a profit for the employer. Then 4 per cent. is added to the wages of all the workpeople to cover public holidays and holidays with pay, with the result that the employers probably reap much more than the cost of paying the wages for their workpeople during holidays.
But they are not content to stay there. Where the labour costs do not exceed £200, the builders are adding an extra 40 per cent. of the wages of the men to cover the overheads of their concerns. I am interested tonight in the small people who have a bill for £50 or £60 for repairing their property and who are being milked by a proposal which allows 40 per cent. for overheads and 4 per cent. to cover public holidays on top of the wages of the people concerned. When we come to the question of materials it becomes an even uglier picture. Where the materials are supplied out of builder's stock which he has obtained at wholesale prices he charges the market retail price for the materials. In addition, he keeps for himself a cash discount of 5 per cent. He then adds to his bill a further 10 per cent. for what he calls the justifiable charge of handling the materials to do the job.
Not satisfied with that, he then charges for storage and waste of materials, but gives no separate indication on the bill that this charge is being added. If second-hand materials are used they shall be charged, says the agreement, at actual cost. I ask the Minister to note that

2217
in a valuation of the market prices of similar materials, second-hand material can be charged for as though it was new. This agreement therefore holds the public up to ransom: it must be preventing thousands of people from doing urgent and necessary repairs to their property.
Where the materials are supplied by the owner of the property they are included for an assessment for private purposes in the bill as though they had been provided by the builder. There are certain direct charges which are added to the bill. There is a charge for any machinery used and a charge for any other materials used. The builder is adding charges for water, sponges, and leather things that he has in any case in his job, so making people pay over and over again for the same things. Then there are charges for the insurance on his property and for the testing of materials. All these amount to the equivalent of another 3d. on the wages of the workers.
After these charges and profits which are, goodness knows, exorbitant enough, he then lumps together the profit that he has been making on the wages and the materials, adds them together and makes a 10 per cent. addition on all that sum, which gives him roughly 108 per cent. profit altogether on any job that he is doing. On a bill that ought to cost £50, builders are charging £75, in those cases where the bill is under £500.
There are additional charges. If the main contractor calls in a sub-contractor to do the work, then the main contractor is allowed to charge a further 5 per cent. on the whole of the bill, including the 10 per cent. profit which the sub-contractor has included. All this is little short of legalised robbery of the public and I believe that the Government cannot be indifferent to such organised exploitation of the public. It is anti-social and unjustifiable, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be as forthright as the Minister of Works himself was in condemning not dissimilar practices a few days ago.
There is a public concern over the amount of property which is falling into disrepair, and I suggest to the House that if this sort of practice is not stopped much more property will fall into a state of disrepair, and we shall have hon. Members on that side of the House making pleading speeches for the poor
2218
landlord, and wanting to put this increased cost into the tenants' rents, whereas the landlord ought to be helped by attention being paid to this combination.
The Minister will be fully aware of this national schedule, and I earnestly hope that, in the interests of private enterprise, in the interests of public confidence, he will expressly dissociate the Government's sympathy from these practices, which can only be described as the overweening greed of people who are making a fair profit without this sort of practice.
11.56 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Williams: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for raising this matter, as I believe, the country will be. I had hoped, had I been successful in the Ballot, to have raised it on a more auspicious occasion, but I am glad to have an opportunity of underlining some of the points which my hon. Friend has made.
This matter was brought to my notice when I had a small job done in my own house and received a bill that seemed to me to be exorbitant. The bill was sent to me without any notice as to how the work had been done; it was merely a statement that it had been done, and the bill with which I was presented was for £10.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the way the bill was made up, because it seems to me that this would be a practical example of the way in which the public are being held to ransom, because it is the kind of thing going on not only in London, as with the London Builders' Conference, but all over the country. It affects the small people who cannot afford to pay exorbitant charges of this kind which, in my judgment, are even more iniquitous than the activities of the London Builders' Conference because they, at least, it can be said, make charges on those people in a better position to pay than these small folk.
There were 28 hours charged for, for the workman himself. The charge was made at 3s. 6d. an hour. I discovered that the average cost to the employer of the carpenter in London was 3s. 3d. an hour. He, therefore, earned, on every

2219
hour the man put in, an initial 3d. or 5 per cent. In addition, there was a further charge of 4 per cent. which was a further 3s. 6d., and then a further charge on top of that of 4 per cent., or £1 17s. 6d.—this for a charge to him of some £6. The builder in this case made a profit of no less than £2 7s.
I was told that, in addition to that, it was possible for him to charge 3d. for the man, had he used brushes. Materials come to £2 10s. 8d. The charge made to me was the charge at the retail price, which rose above the wholesale price 33⅓ per cent. or 16s.—and a further charge of 5 per cent. cash discount.
On a charge to me of £2 10s. the builder had made already a profit of no less than £1 1s. In addition, the builder charged me what he regarded as a reasonable handling charge. That he put down at 10 per cent., or a further 5s., so that on a small charge of £2 10s. the builder had made no less than £1 6s. profit charges. The bill was further added to by 10 per cent., which, I learned from the builder afterwards, was a profit charge, though goodness only knows what he must have called the other charges.
As a result of all this, the position was that on a bill of £10 0s. 3d., the builder had made a profit of no less than £6 1s. My hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff, West said, very moderately, that this action made a profit to the builder on small undertakings of between 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. Here is an actual example of a bill I myself received and which, undoubtedly, hundreds of thousands of other equally innocent and gullible people have received all over the country and from which the builder has made considerably more than 100 per cent. profit.
Mr. G. Thomas: I should like to correct my hon. Friend and say that I gave an illustration to show how much less the cost would have been if the builder had made 50 per cent. profit.
Mr. Williams: The bill would have been rather less than half.
I wrote to ask the builder how he could make this charge, and he replied that it was an agreed and authorised schedule of charges, the impression obviously being left that the Government,
2220
in some way, sanctioned this daylight robbery. In fact, the charge was authorised by no more responsible people than the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who apparently, are responsible to nobody but God and history, and care not a damn for either.
Brigadier F. Medlicott: I have no wish to join issue with either of the hon. Members over this important matter, nor seek to justify every charge. But would the hon. Gentleman concede that in all these bills there must be something added to provide for the overhead charges which go on day in and day out, even when no work is done at all?
Mr. Williams: Certainly, I will deal with that.
When I wrote to say that I regarded this as an outrage and an imposition, the only reply I got was that the builder was not in the least interested in what I thought about the bill as long as I paid it. I was brought up in a builder's house and I had never heard of these charges. I wrote to a builder I knew, who is not a member of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. He replied that it was his practice invariably to charge 12½ per cent. or 1½d. in the 1s. on every hour's work by all his men. This man had approximately the same number of employees as the man who did the work for me. This man told me that, in addition, it was his practice to charge a discount of 5 per cent. if he had not received a cash discount of 5 per cent. from the builder from whom he bought his materials. He said he had been in business for 50 years, and his father before him. This had always been the practice and he discovered that at no time did he suffer a loss.
These matters prove that this cartel, this agreement on the part of builders to hold up the country to ransom, puts them into the category of vampires, who are literally sucking the blood of ordinary people and making more than difficult the task of keeping houses in decent repair. There are cases of decent people who, because of this vicious extortion, are unable to keep their premises in good repair as they cannot afford to feed these bloodsuckers.
12.5 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): I have no doubt that the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) who have raised this matter tonight, and have spoken so strongly upon it, believe that what they have referred to is a secret agreement between builders for extracting exorbitant charges from the public which is having a substantial effect upon the cost of repairs.
In the first place, I would say that, in the vast majority of cases the businesslike and prudent person asks for an estimate from the builder for the work that is to be done. He has every opportunity of obtaining estimates from a number of different builders, and from them he is able to choose one who appears to him to be doing the work at a reasonable price.
The schedule to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has referred has no bearing whatsoever upon any case where an estimate is asked for and where a quotation is given. The only cases in which this schedule comes into operation are those rather exceptional cases where, for some reason or another, it is impossible to obtain an estimate for the work from any of the builders who are anxious to obtain an order of this kind. It is only in those cases that this schedule then applies.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not much time, but might I ask him if what he is saying now means that if a person trusts the builder he is going to rob him?
Mr. Molson: No, that is not what I am saying. I am now coming on to this schedule. This national schedule of day work charges is, in fact, a maximum charge that may be made.
Mr. W. T. Williams: It is the usual charge.
Mr. Molson: It is not the minimum charge.
Mr. Williams: It is the usual charge.
Mr. Molson: In a very great many cases it is possible to arrange with builders to make charges which are less
2222
than those laid down in this schedule. Now, this agreement was come to between the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Institution as being an irresponsible body. They are a thoroughly respectable institution of professional men who represent the interests of those of their customers who require building work to be done, and there is not the slightest reason to suppose that when they agreed to this schedule they had not carefully ascertained what the costs of the builder were likely to be.
In point of fact, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers by no means includes all the builders in the country, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith, South himself mentioned. There is no obligation upon the members of the Federation to charge these prices; and, certainly, those outside the Federation very often do make lower charges.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West has raised this matter because he considers that the Government as a whole should intervene in a matter of this kind. When, in 1934, the Ministry of Works were asked to accept this schedule we declined to do so on the ground that we had not been given an opportunity of investigating the charges; and we have never been willing to regard this schedule as being in any way binding upon ourselves. We do not know that any Government Department has been asked to accept the 1950 schedule, and I have very little doubt that if they were asked to do so they would give the same answer which he gave in 1934.
I am bound to say that we have no special reason to suppose that the charges which are made are exorbitant. In fact, the provisions of this schedule are very similar to the Ministry of Health's form of Prime Cost contract as agreed with the Ministry of Works, the War Damage Commission, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, to be used by local authorities for the repair of war damaged buildings.
Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that there is anything unreasonable in this schedule. The hon. Gentleman have rather given the impression that

2223
there is something secret and surreptitious about it. It is published in Spon's "Architects and Builders Price Book," and is shown as being an agreement in which architects or surveyors can check the bills sent in, and what is provided for in that schedule is the maximum.
When the hon. Gentleman suggests that the high cost of building repairs at present is due to this schedule we know that the high cost of repairs is due to the greatly increased earnings in the building industry and the very greatly increased building materials prices. If we take the level of 1938–39 as 100 the earnings of those employed in the building and contracting industry has gone up to 265, and in the case of building materials to 300. In the last Girdwood Report on the cost of building it is stated that the profits of contractors and builders has only gone up by 1 per cent.
2224
above what the profits were before the war.
There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that this schedule is in any way unreasonable. The Government accepts no responsibility for it, however, but the really substantial increase in the cost of repairs is due to the easily ascertainable increase in the earnings of those employed in the industry and the great increase in the price of building materials. I have no reason to suppose that any exorbitant charges are being made under this schedule, and as it is a matter of negotiation by two parties in the industry there is no justification whatsoever for the Government to intervene.
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Italian Cloth
  Italian Cloth
  Exports (Sales Council)
  Exports (Sales Council)
  Census of Production
  Census of Production
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Sugar Fat and Fondant Imports
  Sugar Fat and Fondant Imports
  N.-E. Trading Estates (Factory Space)
  N.-E. Trading Estates (Factory Space)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax (Furniture and Cosmetics)
  Purchase Tax (Furniture and Cosmetics)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Coronation (Bank of England Notes)
  Coronation (Bank of England Notes)
  Brazilian Cotton (Barter Deal)
  Brazilian Cotton (Barter Deal)
  £ Sterling (Convertibility)
  £ Sterling (Convertibility)
  Imperial Contribution Fund (Northern Ireland)
  Imperial Contribution Fund (Northern Ireland)
  Import Restrictions
  Import Restrictions
  Impounded Nylon Stockings
  Impounded Nylon Stockings
  Agriculture (Bank Advances)
  Agriculture (Bank Advances)
  FOOTPATH, NEWBOLD
  FOOTPATH, NEWBOLD
  AMERICAN FORCES, U.K. (MARRIED QUARTERS)
  AMERICAN FORCES, U.K. (MARRIED QUARTERS)
AGRICULTURE
  Requisitioned Land (Expenditure)
  Requisitioned Land (Expenditure)
  Sheep-Worrying
  Sheep-Worrying
  Cattle Exports (Quarantine Stations)
  Cattle Exports (Quarantine Stations)
  Tuberculosis (Milch Cows)
  Tuberculosis (Milch Cows)
  Fowl Pest Order
  Fowl Pest Order
  Toxic Sprays (Research)
  Toxic Sprays (Research)
  Ploughing Grants, Kent
  Ploughing Grants, Kent
  Farm Survey, Kent (Gradings)
  Farm Survey, Kent (Gradings)
  Pool Labour Scheme
  Pool Labour Scheme
  Crops and Livestock (Returns)
  Crops and Livestock (Returns)
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Apples and Pears (Draft Scheme)
  Apples and Pears (Draft Scheme)
  Supplementary Labour and Miscellaneous Expenditure
  Supplementary Labour and Miscellaneous Expenditure
FISHING INDUSTRY
  White Fish Authority
  White Fish Authority
  Landings, Grimsby and Hull
  Landings, Grimsby and Hull
  FORESTRY COMMISSION HOUSES (RATES)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION HOUSES (RATES)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Toy Weapons (Sale)
  Toy Weapons (Sale)
  Departmental Vehicles (Estimate)
  Departmental Vehicles (Estimate)
  Boundary Commission Recommendations, Co. Durham
  Boundary Commission Recommendations, Co. Durham
  Crimes of Violence (Analysis)
  Crimes of Violence (Analysis)
  Prisoners (Working Hours)
  Prisoners (Working Hours)
  Cinemas (Sunday Opening)
  Cinemas (Sunday Opening)
  Weapons (Sale)
  Weapons (Sale)
  Fire Service College
  Fire Service College
  Juvenile Offenders (Detention Centre, Kidlington)
  Juvenile Offenders (Detention Centre, Kidlington)
  Registered Clubs
  Registered Clubs
POLICE
  Training Centres and College (Cost)
  Training Centres and College (Cost)
  Negotiating Machinery
  Negotiating Machinery
  Unlit Vehicles (Parking, London)
  Unlit Vehicles (Parking, London)
  Local Coronation Celebrations, London (Collections)
  Local Coronation Celebrations, London (Collections)
EMPLOYMENT
  London Dock Workers
  London Dock Workers
  Youth Employment Office, Solihull
  Youth Employment Office, Solihull
  Production Problems
  Production Problems
HOSPITALS
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  House Officers, Sheffield
  House Officers, Sheffield
  Chiropody (Old Age Pensioners, Wales)
  Chiropody (Old Age Pensioners, Wales)
  Mentally Defective Children
  Mentally Defective Children
  Male Nurses
  Male Nurses
  Newcastle Regional Board (Capital Programme)
  Newcastle Regional Board (Capital Programme)
  Staff Shortage
  Staff Shortage
  Mental Institutions (Overcrowding)
  Mental Institutions (Overcrowding)
  Night Casually Service
  Night Casually Service
  Park Hospital, Liverpool
  Park Hospital, Liverpool
  Maternity and Obstetric Research Report, Liverpool
  Maternity and Obstetric Research Report, Liverpool
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  EVICTED FAMILIES, STANLEY (HOUSING)
  EVICTED FAMILIES, STANLEY (HOUSING)
EDUCATION
  School Meals (Cost)
  School Meals (Cost)
  University Students (Grants)
  University Students (Grants)
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Welfare Projects (Grants)
  Welfare Projects (Grants)
  Grammar Schools (Removal of Pupils)
  Grammar Schools (Removal of Pupils)
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Publicity)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Publicity)
  Newly-Trained Teachers (Employment)
  Newly-Trained Teachers (Employment)
  Building Programme
  Building Programme
  New School, Cardiff
  New School, Cardiff
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Smoke Abatement
  Smoke Abatement
  Smelting Factory, Castleside (Complaint)
  Smelting Factory, Castleside (Complaint)
HOUSING
  Defence Regulation 68CA
  Defence Regulation 68CA
  Terrace Houses and Flats (Rural Areas)
  Terrace Houses and Flats (Rural Areas)
  Bombed Sites
  Bombed Sites
  U.S.A. MILITARY SERVICE (U.K. RESIDENTS)
  U.S.A. MILITARY SERVICE (U.K. RESIDENTS)
  GAS SUPPLIES, WEST MIDLANDS
  GAS SUPPLIES, WEST MIDLANDS
  NURSES, SCOTLAND (PAY AND CONDITIONS)
  NURSES, SCOTLAND (PAY AND CONDITIONS)
  BRITISH MUSEUM (NEW LIBRARY)
  BRITISH MUSEUM (NEW LIBRARY)
  SOMALILAND (POLITICAL OFFENCES)
  SOMALILAND (POLITICAL OFFENCES)
  LEASEHOLD COMMITTEE REPORT (EVIDENCE)
  LEASEHOLD COMMITTEE REPORT (EVIDENCE)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)
  2.36 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS) rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Motion which stands in my name, together with the four others that follow, all relate to the same subject matter, and it may be convenient to your Lordships if on this occasion, as on previous occasions, I deal with them together on the Motion for the first Address, so that we may have a general discussion upon them. Further, as your Lordships will see from the Order Paper, it will be my duty later this afternoon to move the Second Reading of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which also is strictly relevant to the same subject as the matters which are covered by the Motion. I think it will be convenient to your Lordships—indeed I understand that it has been agreed through what are called "the usual channels"—that our general discussion should be wide enough to include the Bill, In this way, the House will be saved the tedium of going over the same subject matter twice within a short time. It will probably be convenient if, before I come to the moving of the Bill, I make some observations on its contents—indeed, it will be difficult in dealing with the Motion to avoid taking that course. Of course, it will be competent for your Lordships, in the same way, to comment on the terms of the Bill.
  There is one further mater which I ought to mention to your Lordships in
  446
  relation to this matter. There are five Motions in my name on the Paper, but I propose this afternoon to move only three of them, though, as I have said, the discussion will cover all of them. The ones that t propose to move are the first, the fourth and the fifth. These relate to the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act. The remaining two Motions standing in my name, those which relate to the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1947 and the Defence Regulations made thereunder, I do not propose to move to-day. The reason for that arises out of the rather curious circumstances of the case. Your Lordships may know that a debate is taking place to-day in another place on Motions identical in terms withthose which are before your Lordships. A great number of Amendments have been put down there to the Motions to which I have referred—namely, those dealing with the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Defence Regulations. Those twoMotions, as your Lordships may have observed, unlike the other three, have Schedules which render them particularly susceptible of Amendment. I think your Lordships will agree that it would not be proper that this House should be asked to accept those twoMotions without amendment (let me assume that for this purpose) until your Lordships have had the opportunity of knowing what, if any, Amendments to the Motions are made in another place. A curious position, as your Lordships will observe, might arise ifin this House we agreed one Motion and in another House quite a different Motion were adopted. That has somehow to be avoided. Therefore, it is clearly convenient that we should wait and see what Amendments are accepted and passed in another place.
  Therefore, if your Lordships will agree, I will move, at the end of the debate, only the first, fourth and fifth Motions, and I propose to move the second and third Motions at a later date, when we know what has happened in another place. Then, of course, it will be competent for this House, if it thinks fit, to reject any Amendments which may have been made. What would happen in that event I do not quite know; we should have to work out what I think would be an entirely new position. At

  447
  any rate, we shall be able to see how the matter stands when we have reached that stage. I hope that this is a course which will be convenient to your Lordships on both sides of the House.
  LORD STRABOLGI: Can the noble and learned Lord tell us about what period of time is likely to elapse before we consider the other Motions which we are not going to consider to-day?
  LORD SHEPHERD: They will come up on December 2.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that a date has been arranged as mentioned by Lord Shepherd. We hope that on December 2, if that is convenient, the matter will be brought before your Lordships again.
  Before I come to the terms of the Address, I cannot help thinking it may be convenient to remind your Lordships in a few words of the background. I find this an extraordinarily complicated subject and I think it would be worth while to state accurately, if I can, and get on record, the background against which this matter must be regarded to-day. The power to make Defence Regulations was conferred in the first place by the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, Section 1. By Section 8 (3) of that Act, power was given to vary or revoke Defence Regulations. That Act was temporary and it expired —mark the date —on February 24, 1946. Powers conferred by it and regulations made under it are therefore dead, except in so far as they are kept alive by subsequent legislation, to which I shall now refer. The Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, Section 1—which was passed, therefore, before the date of the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939—gave power by Order in Council to specify Defence Regulations existing at the passing of the 1945 Act as regulations which are to have effect by virtue of that Act. The Section gave no power to make regulations. Section 2 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, to which I have referred, extended the purposes for which Defence Regulations could be made under the 1939 Act, which, as I reminded your Lordships, was still in force in 1945, and it provided that regulations expressed to be made for the
  448
  new purposes were to have effect by virtue of the 1945 Act.
  The power to make regulations for those purposes lapsed on the expiry of the 1939 Act, an event which happened in February, 1946. Regulations which have effect by virtue of the 1945 Act continue in force, unless revoked, so long as the Act continues in force. It continues in force only if it is renewed by an annual Order in Council, which is subject to Affirmative Resolution. Section 3 of the 1945 Act gave power to vary or revoke regulations having effect by virtue of that Act. That is the subject of the first Motion standing in my name which I shall move.
  Now I come to the second Motion. The Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, was passed in anticipation of the expiry of the 1939 Act in February, 1946. Section 1 of this Act continued certain Defence Regulations until December 31, 1947, subject of course, to the power to revoke which was given by the proviso to Section 1 (1) of the 1946 Act, and that Act contains no power to vary. Of the regulations continued by the 1946 Act, some were allowed to expire in 1947. As to the rest, Section 1 (1) of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, continued some of them until December 31, 1948, and the remainder until December 10, 1950. The power to revoke conferred by the 1946 Act was also continued. Section 7 of the 1947 Act provided for the further continuation of the regulations for a period up to ayear at a time by Order in Council subject to an Affirmative Resolution. That, accordingly, is the Motion which was moved last year and which is the second Motion on the Order Paper, which I shall not move to-day but propose to move on a future occasion.
  That is a very complicated story, but if you see it on paper I think you will realise that it is clear. It is an explanation that is extremely difficult to keep in one's head and I thought it was worth while to put it on the record. I may summarise it in this way: there is no power to make new Defence Regulations or renew any that have been revoked or have been allowed to elapse. Secondly, but for the Motions now before Parliament, all Defence Regulations would expire on December 10 next. If I may, I shouldlike to state in a word what we propose.

  449
  We propose to continue some of the existing Defence Regulations for one further year. Some of the regulations continued by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, may be varied or revoked in whole or in part. Regulations continued by the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts of 1946 and 1947 cannot be varied, but may be revoked in whole or in part.
  That is the end of that complicated story, and I will now tell your Lordships what we propose to do. Perhaps before doing that I might just remind your Lordships again, as a matter of convenience, of what is the procedure. It consists of the presentation of Addresses by both Houses of Parliament to Her Majesty in terms of the Motions on the Order Paper. When this has been done Orders in Council are laid, and it happens that one of them—that made under Section 8 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1045, which provides for the continuance in force of that Act—has to be laid before Parliament.
  I should now like to remind your Lordships of the matter we are about to consider. First, there are the economic and financial powers which are derived from the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and fromthe Defence Regulations which have been made under that Act. The nature and the scope of these powers can, of course, be gauged from the list of regulations and codes of regulations which your Lordships will find conveniently set out in the White Paper (Cmd. 8686). Perhaps I may assume that your Lordships are familiar with the contents of Command Paper 8686: I shall have to refer to it from time to time, but many of your Lordships will have had an opportunity of considering it, which you have no doubt taken. I have said something about the financial and economic powers. Next there are the powers which derive from the Emergency Laws Acts 1946 and 1947 and the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order 1951. Particulars of these powers your Lordships will find in theSchedule to the second of the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. Then there are the emergency enactments which are kept in being by Sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. These sections kept alive emergency Acts which
  450
  related to various matters—the marketing of wheat, land drainage, the beet sugar industry, the administration of oaths and the taking of affidavits by officers of the Armed Forces, the defraying out of capital of management land expenses on settled land and land held on trust for sale, and numerous other matters.
  The House will recall that we had a debate on this matter a year ago. On that occasion Her Majesty's Government asked Parliament to maintain the status quo for a time, for the reason that clearly they had not had time to survey the whole area covered by these subjects, and it was a matter which demanded a very long survey. I believe that I in this House, and certainly my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place, undertook that the Government would proceed to a careful review of all the powers, and that in carrying out that review we would have in mind four possibilities. The first of them was that we might find that some of these powers could be relinquished altogether before there was any question of their having to be reviewed. Secondly, there was the possibility that some of them might be embodied in Acts of Parliament requiring annual renewal. The third was that it was thought that after investigation it might prove desirable that some of them should be embodied in permanent legislation. The fourth was that some of them would require to be continued for a further period. Those were the four possibilities which appeared to be open in the considerationand conclusion of this matter.
  A prolonged investigation has been held, and is still going on into these matters, and so far we have reached these conclusions. I hope that the House will agree that, having regard to the difficulties under which we have laboured, we have been able to make considerable progress. I have every hope that we shall make further progress in the course of the ensuing year—in fact, I am confident that we shall—but I hope that your Lordships will feel thatwe have made at least satisfactory progress so far. First, there was the possibility which I mentioned, that we might be able to relinquish certain powers altogether. I remember it being pointed out in the debate last year that such powers could be revoked at any time. In the course of the year some few regulations were revoked and powers

  451
  relinquished, conspicuous among them being the regulation in regard to identity cards. Then there was a whole code of regulations which went in regard to the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, and there were others. But it was thought desirable, and, indeed, it has so proved, to defer revocation on any considerable scale until the first stage of the Government's review of emergency powers generally has been completed.
  At this stage I might refer to the White Paper—and once again I comment on the extraordinary inconvenience to which a Lord Chancellor is put in trying to deal with a multitude of papers with only two hands. If your Lordships will look at the White Paper, you will see that it states:
  "Of the Regulations which were continued in force under the Act last December, Regulation …"—
  and the regulation is named—
  "has been revoked, and it is proposed to revoke, before 10th December, the following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, namely: "—
  and then it sets out a number of them, nine in all. Then on page 3 it goes on to state this:
  "The final result is that the continuation of the Supplies and Services Act will keep in force the following Regulations (some of which, however, it is proposed to revoke in part)"—
  and there are no fewer than twenty-eight of those regulations which it is proposed to revoke in part. Nine separate regulations are revoked in entirety—and what may be called the code of regulations, shown in the last line of the second page of the White Paper, the Defence (Encouragement of Exports) Regulations, 1940 (it is not perhaps happily printed) —that code of regulations is a separate item.
  Since the White Paper was laid my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has completed his discussions with the local authorities' associations and the London County Council about Regulation 68CA. That is the regulation in which some of your Lordships will have taken an interest, which imposes certain restrictions on the conversion of housing accommodation to use for non-residential purposes. The local authorities wished
  452
  to keep this regulation. My right honourablefriend is satisfied that it is necessary to keep a firm check on the transfer of housing accommodation for other purposes, but he is satisfied that adequate powers of control are given in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which was enacted, as yourLordships may remember, after the making of this regulation. The Act has largely superseded the regulation, which has now become unnecessary. The conclusion has therefore been reached that this regulation should not be retained in force after December 10.I mention that regulation specifically, because I understand that it is one in which certain of your Lordships have taken some interest. As I say, it is considered that ample power is given in the provisions of the Act, which was passed after the regulation had been made.
  The second category of instruments which it is now proposed to discontinue are those which subsist by virtue of the Emergency Laws Act and the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order. I was dealing with the Supplies and Services and so on. Theinstruments in question are the seven separate regulations and the three codes of regulations which are set out on page 5 of the White Paper. I need not refer to them in detail. If your Lordships will be good enough just to glance at the Paper, you will see that there are a substantial number of regulations and codes of regulations which are to be allowed to expire.
  I wish to refer back for one moment to what I said a little earlier—namely, that we not only propose to revoke or allow to expire a number of regulations, but we propose also to revoke in part a number of regulations. I should like, if I may, to say just a word about that. Your Lordships will see in the White Paper the statement, to which I have already referred, of our intention to revoke in part some of the regulations which it is intended to keep in force by virtue of the Supplies and Services Act. This process of partial revocation, as I have said, extends to no fewer than twenty-eight separate regulations. In the majority of cases, the power conferred by the regulation will be reduced by its partial revocation. In other cases, the power will not be altered, but the authorities will be precluded from making a fresh use of the power in the future.

  453
  Let me give an example of what we have in mind. I will take Regulation 68A and other cognate regulations, setting up a licensing, system authorising the reconditioning, and thereafter the occupation, of condemned houses for the purpose of providing homes for farm workers and homeless persons—a desperate and perhaps rather ruthless expedient which was adopted by our predecessors and which was no doubt necessary. In future, no fresh licence will be issued under that regulation, but houses now occupied under existing licences will continue to be available for occupation for that purpose. It is a step forward, illustrating the progress which has been made in meeting the housing problem. I think it is important and valuable that, so far, the regulation should he revoked.
  Your Lordships will no doubt have considered carefully what regulations it is proposed should be discontinued, but you will perhaps wish me to draw attention to one or two of the more important. Regulation 54A is one which has excited some comment, certainly in another placeand, I think, in this House also. That is the regulation which allows certain Departments of State to permit nuisances where this is considered to be unavoidable—nuisances by noise, smell and so on. This power is now to be revoked. I might refer also to Regulation 42CA, which relates to unlawful gaming parties, objection to the continuance of which was taken by a number of persons in another place. I do not recollect whether specific reference was made to it in this House, but certainly it appears from a reading of the Reports of what took place in another place that objection was taken to it there.
  I should like to give another example or two of the partial revocations—but first I wonder if I may say this. I have felt great difficulty, in moving these Motions, in knowing into w hat detail I should go. Obviously, I could go through every regulation that is being revoked and every regulation that is being continued, and explain why it is being revoked or why it is being continued. That would have been a gigantic task and although, if I may be permitted a personal recollection, I well remember addressing your Lordships' House from the Bar of the House for twenty-five hours, I do not think that is an experi-
  454
  ment that ought to be repeated. Therefore, I have thought it the happier course to refer in rather general terms to the regulations which we propose to continue or revoke, leaving to your Lordships the opportunity (of which I fancy you will avail yourselves) to ask, it may be, why so many arerevoked or, it may be, why so many are continued, referring in detail to each one of them. I shall do my best to satisfy your Lordships but, of course, in doing so, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence, because we shall be covering the field of every Department of State, and I shall find a great difficulty in being able to answer extempore every question that is put. However, I will do my best.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? He has referred often in his speech to the fact that these regulations have been closely examined to see which could be done without. Has the examination been conducted by the Ministers who profit by the use of these powers?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Viscount will expect me togo into too great detail as to who has made the examination. It has been made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think the noble Viscount can expect me to say what Minister has been one of a Cabinet Committee or other Committee which deals with these matters. But I can assure him that they have been gone into most carefully, and the result of the investigation is that which I tell the House to-day. I add, again with the same authority, that it is hoped that many of these regulations which arenow continued will, in the future—and some of them in the near future—be allowed to expire.
  I wish to give an example of one or two cases of partial revocation, and one which I would mention is paragraphs 1 to 3 of Regulation 62. That is a regulation which authorises the issue of directions about the cultivation, management and use of land for agricultural purposes. I think your Lordships, or at least those of you who are interested, may remember that paragraphs 2 and 2A of this regulation, which will not be continued, authorised the dispossession, if necessary by force, of a tenant of agricultural land who had failed to comply with a direction given under the regulation.

  455
  Another example I can give your Lordships is this. It is proposed to abrogate the power of the Minister of Labour, given by Regulation 58A, to regulate the duration and situation of the employment of workers and to require the compulsory registration of particulars of employers and employees. Another one that I would mention is Regulation 62A. Under this the Minister gives local authorities who hold land occupied by them, including requisitioned land, power to cultivate it, even if the cultivation would otherwise be illegal or would constitute a breach of trust or a breach of covenant. That power is now to be discontinued. Another one I would mention is Regulation 51 (4). Here a power was given to the Government to appoint controllers of undertakings. That is to be relinquished.
  Then again, where several regulations are concerned—I mention Regulations 55, 55A, 55B, and 56A, and the Defence (Price Control) Regulations—the Director of Public Prosecutions or other prosecuting authority will lose the right to require that cases shall not be tried by courts of summaryjurisdiction. Your Lordships will see, of course, the result of that. Trial by jury has the effect of exposing offenders to a heavier penalty than that which might be imposed on summary prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions will no longer havethis considerable penal power. I would mention, too, Regulation 90, from which it is proposed to delete the words:
  "… or do any act preparatory to the commission of …"
  The effect of that will be that it will no longer be possible to prosecutefor acts held to be "preparatory to the commission of" an offence under the regulations. I cannot help thinking that this is a power the surrender of which will be satisfactory to all noble Lords on both sides of the House.
  I come to the second possibility of repeal which I have mentioned. It may be that it will be possible to embody some of the regulations in legislation which will require annual review by Parliament. The Government have not yet been able to satisfy themselves that there are any powers which fall clearly into this category, and accordingly I am not in a position to tell your Lordships that
  456
  there are any regulations which it is proposed to incorporate in Acts of Parliament requiring annual renewal. But that is a possibility which is being kept in mind, and if an opportunity occurs we shall avail ourselves of it. Your Lordships will appreciate that in a crowded legislative programme this is not a course which we shall willingly take if other courses are open.
  The third possibility which we had in mind was that of embodying in permanent legislation emergency powers which could be seen to be permanently required. Very often, what begins as an emergency comes to be regarded as in the course of nature; and the measure which is taken to meet an emergency is seen to be necessary as a part of our permanent law. Emergencies sometimes do create an enduring and permanent situation. We had that in mind when we embarked on this inquiry. If I may be permitted a purely personal reflection, it may well appear that a further review of other regulations which we seek now to renew only for a year will show that they may, in fact, require permanent legislation. But I think noble Lords on all sides will agree that it is very undesirable to take that course unless we are sure that permanent law will, in fact, be required. We have to be very sure of it; and I think we err on the safe side in asking your Lordships to renew for a year in some cases in which it may well prove that permanent legislation will be required.
  I do not think it would be expedient for me at this stage to say much upon the way in which that possibility has been met, for that, of course, is the subject of the Bill to which I shall shortly be asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading. But it is a fact that a substantial number of regulations which had a temporary character are now to be embodied in permanent legislation, and they form the several parts of the Bill. I would only say this about the Bill that it is a very hybrid sort of creature—and necessarily so. It contains miscellaneous provisions, but there is one single common characteristic of the various provisions of it, and that is that they have been temporary and it is now determined that they ought to be permanent. But they cover a very wide variety of subjects, with which I will deal when I come to the Bill. In the meantime, I venture to point

  457
  out to your Lordships that when you consider the number of regulations which, on the face of it, are continued, you will find included in that number a substantial number which are continuing in force only until their place is taken by permanent in an Act. Therefore your Lordships must give us credit for a substantially larger number of revocations than appear on the face of the Order Paper.
  Finally, the Government always foresaw that, whatever might be the result of their review of this wide field of emergency powers, a number of powers will have to be continued for a further period in their present form. I do not think I need remind the House in detail of the nature of the powers in question and the need for their continuance. I will only say, first of all, that they are continued for defence purposes. We are still at war; and not only are we at war asa member of the United Nations in Korea, and committed to war-like operations elsewhere—as in Malaya—but we are faced with the grave emergency of continuing our rearmament programme, which demands something more than provisions which were made for conditions of peace. We are therefore face to face with an emergency, and these regulations are needed.
  As they are needed for defence purposes, so they are still surely needed also for economic purposes. As your Lordships know well, there is the continuing trouble of our investment programme—a phrase which I do not not like. There is all the difficulty of allocation, supply, finance and so on, to the several clamant needs of the nation, in regard to which some priority must be determined andawarded by Her Majesty's Government. We need them for economic purposes but, more than that, we need them, too, for the winding up of certain war-time measures; and, indeed, for certain post-war problems. If your Lordships look through these regulations that are to be continued, you will see over and over again that this or that measure is required in order to wind up something which has been done in the course of the war or to meet post-war problems. Again, in considering their numbers, what struck me, asI read so many of the regulations, is that one seems to breed
  458
  another. If I may use a familiar rhyme in this connection:
  "Big fleas have little fleas
  Upon their backs that bite 'em;
  And little fleas have lesser fleas,
  And so ad infinitum."
  Again and again we find a regulation which is ancillary to another regulation and made in order that that other regulation may be effective.
  The question, of course, arose: Assuming that many of these powers have to be continued, for how long should they be continued?We thought it proper to ask for one year, in order that, with the same urgency, the matter may be reviewed during that year. I do not want to rake up old troubles, but I cannot help thinking that when in 1945 His Majesty's then Government asked for a renewal for five years, as they did, of these emergency powers, a mistake was made, because the sense of urgency was lost sight of. At any rate, we asked for one year last year, and we shall ask for one year again. Unhesitatingly, I give the same undertaking that Her Majesty's Government gave before, that the whole question will be vigilantly reviewed all the time, because I do not think there can be any doubt that, from their side of the House at least, the continuance of these powers is regarded as, in principle, objectionable.
  There is a matter which may not be strictly germane to my Motion —though I think probably it is, because one of the objections always taken to the continuance of powers of this kind is that they involve a number of officials who have a right of entry and inspection. In answer to a Question that was put to me some little time ago, I was able to give the House some figures in regard to the numbers of officials armed with powers of that kind. Even if the matter is not strictly germane to the subject we are discussing, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I give the figures up to date. On July 15 last, the total number of officials possessing powers of entry to private or business premises without a warrant was 16,744. That numberincluded 3,887 who were empowered to enter private houses, used exclusively as such. It represented a very substantial reduction since June of 1951, a reduction of no fewer than 2,451, of whom 2,101 were persons having power to enter private houses. Thatalso is a matter

  459
  which has been subject to continuous review, and I can now tell your Lordships that the number has been further reduced to 14,450, of whom 3,083 are persons empowered to enter private premises. That represents a reduction since June 1,1951, of 4,745 in the total number of officials with powers of entry, and of 2,905 in the number of those empowered to enter private premises. One can only hope—and I certainly hope—that, as this review continues, and as powers are reduced,so also will the number of those persons whose duty it is to enter upon premises in order to see that regulations are complied with.
  If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two more, I ought to say just a word or two upon the fourth and fifth Motions standing in my name. The first relates to Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949. The Motion is a Prayer that, under the terms of that section, its provisions be continued for one more year. This is an extremely difficult and technical subject, upon which I do not want to trouble the House unnecessarily. It is just an example of what I was saying a short time ago. We have been examining the matter with great care but we are not yet satisfied that we have found precisely the right way of embodying the provisions of that section in permanent legislation. It is one of the greatest difficulty. If I may describe it in one word, it enlarges the rights of the Crown in respect of the use of patents. I should be wrong, I think, at this stage to enlarge upon that topic. I will simply say that it is a provision which enlarges the powers of the Crown already existing under Section 49 of the Act in relation to patents; and, with the best will in the world, it must be a matter of investigation and much consideration with the relevant industrial organisations to find an appropriate way of dealing with that matter other than by renewing this regulation for the year.
  I venture to mention this at this stage because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, is exercised in his mind about this matter. There is nobody, if I may say so with respect, who knows so much about these matters as the noble Lord, and therefore his opinion is entitled to the greatest consideration. The fact is that we have had in mind just the sorts ofconsiderations which have vexed him, and we have come to the conclusion that
  460
  no other course is open to us than to ask the House to renew this section of the Act for one year. We hope that before another twelve months have passed we shall have found a solution. Exactly the same considerations apply to the fifth Motion which stands in my name, dealing with Registered Designs. If possible, this is a more complicated and difficult subject even than that of patents.
  Although I have spoken now for nearly an hour, I am conscious that in this vast area I cannot have satisfied all your Lordships about everything. That, perhaps, is a thing that one can never hope for. But I will, as I say, do my best, when my time comes to reply, to deal both with those who think that more regulations should have been revoked and with those who feel that fewer regulations should have been revoked. I do not know into which category most of your Lordships will fall. But I hope that, having expressed your views upon it and having received such answers as I am able to give, your Lordships will see your way to agree at any rate to the Motions which stand first, fourth and fifth in my name; the others I shall not move. I respectfully invite your Lordships, in discussing the first Motion, to deal with the whole area covered by the several Motions. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  3.31 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the Whole House will be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for the very clear way in which he has discharged what is, I am sure, a most difficult task. To have attempted to have done more than he did and to have gone into more detail would, I am afraid, have wearied the House and, perhaps even worse, bored it; and especially in view of the threat, or statement, that to develop this subject in the way in which it ought to be developed in full might take twenty-five hours, I am sure we are all very grateful

  461
  to the noble and learned Lord for sparing us to the extent of only one hour's talk. But to have said less than the noble and learned Lord did say would have made the whole subject under discussion to-day incomprehensible. It is a vitally important subject and I can assure the noble and learned Lord that, in difficult circumstances, he has done justice, and no more than justice, to the subject.
  We are asked to approve three of the five Motions to-day and, subject to the addendum which is to be moved to the first of these Motions, we on this side of the House have no objection to them. I myself propose to discuss only two of the individual regulations, although some of my noble friends may have something to say on others. I do not feel qualified to express any opinion as to whether too many or too few have been revoked.I am sure the noble and learned Lord will be pleased when he finds that some noble Lords consider that too many have been revoked, whilst others think that too few nave been revoked, because it puts him in the happy position of saying that probably what the Government are doing is about right; it is a position in which I have always been glad to find myself in the past.
  It is much too difficult, without the close study which apparently Her Majesty's Government have given to this matter, to express any definite opinion about it, but I regret that two of the regulations are not being retained. One, as the noble and learned Lord forecast, is Regulation 68CA, which gives to the housing authorities the power to refuse permission to change the use of a dwelling-house to some other purpose. After all, it is the housing authorities who are in a position to know to what extent the housing problem has been substantially alleviated in their area, and, generally speaking, they are not the planning authorities. The planning authorities are more remote from the housing situation than are the housing authorities, and I should have thought that it is at any rate premature to discontinue Regulation 68CA.
  The other regulation to which I wish to refer is Regulation 62AA, which provides a penalty for allowing dogs to stray on allotments. That is a subject in which I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, is interested—at any rate, he
  462
  referred to it in his speech on agriculture the other day. Psychologically, I should have thought that, at a time when we in this country are still suffering from a grave shortage of food, it was wrong to give the impression that we can let up on any matter which may injure the production of food.
  I was particularly interested to hear the noble and learned Lord say that he was not yet satisfied that there are any further regulations which require annual approval by Parliament. This is the third successive year that we have had a similar debate on these regulations, and it is interesting tosee the attitude which various noble Lords on the two sides of the House have taken in this matter, according to whether they were on this side of the House or on the other. In the past, noble Lords who sat on this side of the House certainly gave the impression in debate that they were anxious to sweep away the whole body of emergency legislation, and we who were on the other side of the House made exactly the kind of speech which the noble and learned Lord has made this afternoon. It will be interesting to hear what noble Lords opposite have to say on this subject this afternoon, and to see whether they are consistent.
  I do not wish to discuss this matter on the basis of Party politics (it is much too important for that), but I do want to remind noble Lords of one or two statements that have been made in the past. First of all, I should like to quote the Prime Minister who, speaking in Edinburgh, on May 18, 1940 said:
  "I take this occasion of announcing that we should oppose the permanent extension of the Act, and insist on the continuation only on a year-to-year basis in order to retain full Parliamentary control."
  That is not what the noble and learned Lord is doing to-day. Here he is seeing how far he can make certain of these regulations permanent. I think that was the third of the possibilities he referred to, and it is the purpose of the Bill which we shall be discussing later in the afternoon. On October 23, 1950, the first occasion upon which these regulations came under review for an extension for one year, Mr. Crookshank said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: Vol. 478, Col. 2518):
  "… all this corpus has to be looked at and has to be pruned down, and we serve notice that in our view this has to be done within the next twelve months."

  463
  My Lords, it has not been done "within the next twelve months." Indeed, the harvest has been relatively small—not because Her Majesty's Government have not done their best severely to prune down these regulations, but because they have found just what we found when we were in office, that so many of them really are necessary for the purposes to which the noble and learned Lord himself referred—namely, defence, economic and winding-up purposes. So it is interesting to find that Her Majesty's Government to-day are very much in the position in which the Labour Government found themselves in 1950 and 1951.
  There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer in connection with a controversy which has taken place over the years. The Labour Party have been constantly accused of maintaining controls for the sake of maintaining them. That has never been true, and I hope that the House will realise, after the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it is less true to-day than it ever was.A large number of these regulations are necessary for maintaining our present-day life. But it is a fact that, in spite of what is said about the love of the Labour Party for maintaining controls for the sake of maintaining them, more than half of the Defence Regulations, more than half of the regulations to which the noble and learned Lord referred, had been discontinued by the end of October, 1950; and a number more were discontinued after that. Indeed, they were discontinued at a rate not very differentfrom the rate at which regulations have been discontinued by the present Government in the past year. We certainly picked those which we thought were ready for discontinuation. But to have discontinued more than half is hardly consistent with the statement that we wanted to hang on to controls for the sake of hanging on to them. I think that fact certainly bears out the view which we take of controls—namely, that it is right to hang on to those which are necessary and to get rid of those which are unnecessary.
  I do not think there is any great difference between the Parties about our attitude to the Motions before the House to-day. As the noble and learned Lord said, we may think that some of these
  464
  regulations are being discontinued prematurely, and we may think that others might be added to the permanent body of regulations. But those are matters of detail and they will be discussed at the proper time. As for myself, I have mentioned the regulations which I think are being prematurely discontinued. I do not wish to deal in any detail with any others, but I should like to remind the House just where we are and where we are going in the way of regulations.
  The emergency enactments and the Defence Regulations are becoming more and more complicated: the speech of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack certainly bears that out. No one in this House could have put the case more simply and more clearly than he did. Yet he had to admit that he was dealing with the matter just on the surface, soto speak, and that it would have taken a very long time merely to explain what it is sought to do this afternoon. Let us remember that every one of these regulations has the force of law, that they are intended to be obeyed and complied with by the citizens and that any breach of those regulations is committed by the citizens at their peril. Anyone who commits a breach may be punished, and in some cases may be punished very severely. It is almost impossible to keep track of the different emergency enactments under which these regulations are made, and to have in mind which are in force to-day and which are not. And the Motions we now have before us are certainly not calculated to make life any simpler in respect of these regulations. As each year passes, every time we make any variation of these emergency enactments we complicate matters. It is exceedingly difficult to-day to find out which of these regulations are in force and which are not.
  At the end of 1950—and I think before that in 1948—there was published a volume of Emergency Defence Regulations. Here they are. The regulations set out are those which were in force at the end of 1950 under various emergency enactments. A considerable number of them have ceased to be in force since then. I suppose that by the exercise of infinite patience and an immense amount of research one might be able to find out which of these enactments have been discontinued and which

  465
  are still in force, but that is a task beyond the capacity of most citizens and beyond the capacity of a great many of the advisers of citizens. I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether it is not time to bring out a new edition of this volume, so that we may know what is in force and what is not —at anyrate after these various Motions have been agreed to.
  I do not think there is much more I wish to say about these Defence Regulations, but I hope the House will bear with me if I stray somewhat outside the rules of order and extend my remarks to the subject of regulations generally, because, after all, the Defence Regulations are merely a part of a much bigger question—that of legislation by regulation, or "delegated legislation," as it is called. The noble and learned Lord has explained to us that no new Defence Regulations have been possible since 1945, though I understand that orders under Defence Regulations are constantly being made, and that even they have the force of law. But an immense outpouring of delegated legislation is constantly going on under many other enactments. I do not know whether noble Lords see the document that is published every fortnight, under the heading: "Statutory Instruments, Etc." I believe that, on the average, the total of these Instruments works out at something likeone hundred a fortnight. This is the most recent edition of the document to which I refer. I have not counted the number of Instruments therein set out, but I see that the issue is a much bigger one than usual, and I dare say the total runs into several hundreds. At any rate, ever since 1945 we have had an average of over 2,000 new Regulations imposed annually upon the public, every one of which has the force of law and for the breach of which a penalty may be imposed.
  It is true that for the greater part of that period these regulations were imposed by a Labour Government, but the present Government have well maintained the average. Up to the present, for the year 1952 they have topped the 2,000 mark. The last time I looked at it, the number was 1,999; there are still six weeks to go and there is every prospect that by the end of the year the output of delegated legislation by the present Government will be well up to what it has been in the past. I do not say nor
  466
  do any of my noble friends say, nor, I think, will any responsible member of this House say, that delegated legislation is unnecessary. We have reached a time when we have to recognise that delegated legislation has come to stay. Even the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, recognised that last year,and I imagine he will do so again this year. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was a member of the Donoughmore Committee—a long time ago now—which recognised that delegated legislation would have to be a permanent feature of our administrative life, though I doubt whether they visualised anything of the order of 2,000 regulations per annum.
  We have to look at this problem in the light of the new conditions which exist to-day. We have to look at the immense outpourings of what amounts to legislation, accepting the fact that in the complex system of our present day society delegated legislation is necessary. Nor am I prepared to agree that it is unnecessary to have over 2,000 regulations per annum. I have not examined them all— I do not suppose that any other noble Lord has done so—and it is impossible to say whether every single one is or is not necessary. But I say that if we are to have delegated legislation on this scale, then three conditions must be complied with.
  The first is that these regulations must be clear to the ordinary citizen. It is no good having legislation affecting the citizen which reads something like one of the last to be published—No. 1961, the Chocolate, Sugar Confectionery and Cocoa Products (Amendment No. 4) Order, as amended, which is further amended as follows:
  "by substituting in paragraph 2 of Part I of the Second Schedule thereto for the words 'the maximum price shall be at the rate of 5s. 4d. the lb.' the words 'no maximum price shall. apply'."
  Then there are sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) in somewhat similar terms. I suppose I picked out a fairly easy one, because I have guessed, having read the newspapers, that this means that there is no further control of chocolate prices. But if it means that, it should not be left to an intelligent guess. Why cannot the order say so? Why cannot it be written in plain language so that everyone can understand it and those members of the public pleased with it can really congratulate themselves that something good

  467
  is happening, without needing the services of someone else to tell them that that is what it means. There are other orders even more complicated than that. I ask if we can have this delegated legislation written in the simplest possible terms, clear to the ordinary citizen. Secondly, orders ought to be in a form which is readily available to the ordinary citizen—not obtainable only by going to Kingsway and buying them, if the persons there are not too busy to sort out what one wants, but readily available so that one can look up and see what regulations are in force relating to a particular subject. That should not be too difficult. Some sort of index could be made available, so that any member of the public who wants all theregulations affecting chocolate, or meat or any other subject, can readily find them—and find them written in terms which he can understand.
  The third condition I would make, which I admit is the most difficult of all, is that there should be adequate Parliamentary control. To-day there is a form of Parliamentary control which, in my view, may well be worse than no Parliamentary control at all, because it is illusory. There are two sides to it. There are the Special Orders Committee of this House andthe corresponding Committee in another place, which draw attention to those regulations which they consider ought to be looked at closely. I speak with the greatest respect to these Committees, which are doing a most difficult and, I would say, almost impossible job. There is also the procedure of Prayer or Affirmative Resolution in another place and in this House. The Statutory Instruments Committee and the Special Orders Committee do not go into the merits of the regulations. Generally speaking, they donot explain them. They merely draw attention to those that need some explanation. I do not wish for a moment to decry the value of that, but it is quite inadequate, and I imagine few noble Lords have the opportunity of even finding out what are the reports of these Committees. That, in itself, is hardly Parliamentary control.
  The second method, of Negative Resolution, is seldom resorted to in this House, although available to us. In another place it has been resorted to very often—as a method of obstruction, not necessarily as a means of discussing the
  468
  merits of an order, and this is true of both Parties in recent years. Be that as it may, it is impossible to discuss any considerable number of regulations in this way, even if all the discussions were carried out with the utmost good faith. There is a limit to Parliamentary time and to Parliamentary endurance. When members of another place have been sitting up to 4 o'clock in the morning, as they did this morning, for the purpose of carrying on normal business, it is hardly encouraging then to start exercising public control over regulations which have been introduced. As your Lordships know, there is a limited time in which it is possible to discuss these regulations.
  Therefore, the question arises:Is there any new way in which to exercise power to control these regulations, in view of the inevitably large number of regulations which every Government finds itself under an obligation to get through? I submit to the House that this is the most important constitutional question that we have to consider at the present time. I have no ready-made answer; all I can do is to think aloud. But it seems to me that it should be the task of some special body, which should be set up for the express purpose, to gothrough these regulations and to approve or not to approve them: not merely to draw attention to those that need consideration, but to go much further than that. That is a task which, as I have explained, it would be impossible for the other place to carry out. Any suggestion that they can do so, or are doing so, is purely illusory. There is no real Parliamentary control at all.
  But is there any way in which we in this House can assist by the exercise of greater Parliamentary control than has hitherto takenplace, or than is possible in another place? It may well be that here is a function for this House which we might consider undertaking, which would not compete with the powers of the other place and which would be in the interest of the public as a whole.Obviously, I do not expect the Lord Chancellor to reply to this suggestion, or even to give his first reactions, but it is a matter which is deserving of the utmost consideration. We just cannot go on with 2,000 regulations a year and pretend that they are the subject of Parliamentary control, when they are not. I suggest

  469
  that the time may well have come for a new Donoughmore Committee. After all, the last one, which was set up twenty years ago, dealt with an entirely different set of circumstances, and could not possibly have visualised that we should be having anything like delegated legislation of this magnitude. It is not a matter greatly of order; it is a matter of complete revolution in the method of regulation. I think the time may well have comewhen this question should be reviewed by a new Committee, examining it objectively, of course, and putting before us their views on how the matter should be dealt with, and particularly how we could get the maximum amount of Parliamentary control over this form of legislation.
  It has been suggested that there should be power to amend regulations, and that that would be one method of exercising Parliamentary control. I am not at all sure that it would really work. Any Amendment that was made by this House would have to go to another place and it would presumably have to go through the various stages of a Bill. Even though we in this House may be able to spare the time to go through regulations in that way, it is obvious, from what I have said, that it wouldbe quite unworkable if they also had to go through the same process in another place. What we need is a simple time-saving method of exercising Parliamentary control in these matters; and unless we have it, frankly, we are in danger of having a dictatorship of the bureaucracy, which I am not sure is not more damaging even than a dictatorship of the proletariat. At any rate, nobody wants dictatorship of any kind, and there is a great danger that we may become involved, perhaps without even realising it until it is too late, in a dictatorship of the bureaucracy.
  I am afraid that I have strayed somewhat from the narrow terms of the Motions before the House, and it is fortunate that there is no one to call me to order, but I did feel that this was an occasion when we might discuss the whole question of delegated legislation. After all, these Defence Regulations are only a relatively small part of the whole problem, and it seemed to me to be illogical to consider this small amount without looking at the picture of delegated legislation as a whole. On these particular Motions, I would say that we
  470
  recognise that, subject possibly to some amendment by the insertion or deletion of a number of regulations in the Schedule, we have to accept these Motions. We certainly accept the principle of the Bill—I am not sure whether the Lord Chancellor has moved it yet.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, not yet.
  LORD SILKIN: When the noble and learned Lord does move it he will find no difficulty from this side of the House, exceptagain the possibility of moving certain Amendments in the Schedule. I hope it will be possible to consider this problem seriously, and I know of no tribunal where it can be better considered than this House.
  4.6 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel surethe whole House will agree that the course suggested by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for our procedure to-day and the following days is the one most conducive to the smooth working of our business and the right inter-relation between the procedure of this House and that of another place. I am sure, also, that we shall all endorse what the Lord Chancellor has said as to the extreme complexity of the matters with which he has been dealing and with which we are now dealing. He has walked with a firm tread through the devious ways of a very intricate labyrinth, and we were glad to see him emerge with safety "by the same door wherein he went." He began by saying that in the first instance he would deal with the background of the whole problemand he did so primarily from the legal and Parliamentary standpoint. I also had intended, and do intend, to take the same course: not to embark upon discussions of individual cases or particular regulations, but again to deal with the background, though rather the background from the point of view of public policy. For this topic to-day touches closely the matters that I have ventured to bring to your Lordships' notice on several occasions in the form of the Bills entitled Liberties of the Subject Bill. 'These matters we are now discussing were touched upon by the opening clause of the Bill which I had the honour of introducing no longer ago than last July, the question being: What form

  471
  of Parliamentary control should there be over delegated legislation?
  I fully agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that such legislation there must be—everyone concurs in that. For Parliament to consider point by point and stage by stage, in both Houses, every one of the matters separately dealt with in theclauses of these thousands of regulations, would destroy our whole Parliamentary system and bring democracy in this country into utter disrepute. It is clear that many of the regulations—indeed, no doubt most of the regulations now in force —cannot be brought to a sudden violent stop on December 10 of this year. That would utterly disorganise a great many of the services which are absolutely essential to the daily life of the nation. Therefore, no one, I imagine, in the whole House, no matter to what Party he may belong, would oppose a measure for the continuance of most regulations after the due date for their legal termination.
  As to the progress that has so far been made by the Government in pruning this great jungle of administrative regulations, I do not think any of us can judge off-hand whether it is as great as ought to have been achieved or not. I confess that I was not greatly impressed by what the noble and learned Lord said on the subject of the regulation dealing with powers of entry. That is a matter on which one may be surprised to find how lively is the public interest; in the great mass of correspondence that I have received in connection with the Liberties of the Subject Bills, and in cuttings that I have received from the organs of the Press, that is the subject to which reference is most constantly made. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack told us, apparently with some feeling of satisfaction, that the Government had been busy in dealing with this subject and had reduced the number of officials with power to enter premises without warrant. To what? I expected him to say, possibly, 200; I would allow him 500 or even 1,000; but he put his hand on his breast and said, "The Government have succeeded now in reducing the number to 14,000." I think that is a matter for a white sheet, rather than for a halo, and I sincerely trust that more rapid progress can be made, rather than that this procedure of piecemeal action in individual cases should be regarded as effective.
  472
  Let me remind your Lordships how it is that we have come into this position. It is obviously caused—and everyone knows it—by the occurrence of two great wars, and the legislation with which we are now dealing is a legacy of the Second World War. Then, the country, in a state of high patriotism and a sense of grave peril, said in effect to the Government, from the first day of the war: "Take what powers you will, so long as you can defend this country and bring us victory. We will sacrifice all ourresources. We will sacrifice our lives. We will abandon many of our precious liberties so long as you can protect our greatest liberty, liberty from conquest." Without demur all these powers were freely given, and they have been exercised, many of them, ever since. But there was a feeling in the country that this is not to be the permanent arrangement of our laws. I would quote words from one who is always more worth quoting than anyone else—Mr. Churchill. On August 21, 1940, at the very moment of extreme crisis, dealing with these very matters he said this:
  "All these emergency measures which restrict the liberty of the subject shall disappear with the passing of the emergency, and the new offences created by the regulations under the Emergency Powers Act and extraordinary powers entrusted to the Executive will vanish with the advent of victory and peace."
  That was said in 1940. We are now in November, 1952. Indeed, when the war was over in 1945, the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act was passed with a scope wider even than had been conferred during the war. Here are the purposes for which regulations might be made:
  "(a) for promoting the productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture;
  (b) for fostering and directing exports and reducing imports, or imports of any classes, from all or any countries and for redressing the balance of trade."
  Mark this one above all:
  "(c) generally for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used, in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."
  Is it possible to imagine wider powers conferred upon any Executive? No Hitler could claim authority wider than is expressed in those paragraphs.
  Parliament in earlier days used not to demur at including in a Bill a general clause allowing the Executive to make regulations under that Act, because those

  473
  regulations were usually minor adjustments necessary to bring the Act into force and to give effect to it in matters of comparative detail. But these clauses that I read just now are of a very different order, and therefore in these days public opinion is much more concerned to see that their representatives—the representatives of the people in Parliament—shall have some voice in what is being done, and some effective voice and power of control, than they ever were in bygone days. Again I would quote the Prime Minister, ten years after his first observation, when he said that all these emergency regulations should vanish on the return of peace. He still has to say:
  "Our object is to get rid of the whole system of controls and restrictions as soon as possible. Post-war shortages should not be made the excuse for clamping a permanent system of controls upon the community."
  Well, we all endorse that, but at what snail's pace are we going towards the destination which he holds out as our object! That is ten years later, after his first speech. Still the task is far from being accomplished. And mark what can be done in some particular case under ourpresent system!
  In 1947, two years after the end of the war, the Government of the day thought it necessary to pass a regulation for what was called "industrial conscription" and "the direction of labour," giving powers to Government Departments to direct working people to go into one industry rather than into another. That may be right or wrong. It may have been avoidable or unavoidable, but it is undoubtedly a grave infringement of the liberties of the subject. What happened to that regulation? It was brought in during the Parliamentary Recess and was put into actual operation—it is; true that it was never given any wide scope, but it might have been—without Parliament having been consulted in any way or having had an opportunity of saying one word either as to the principle or the practice of that regulation. There is, therefore, still a very urgent and actual question of high importance. I do not know that I should join with the noble Lord who has just spoken in thinking that this is the most important constitutional question with which we
  474
  have to deal, but certainly it is a question of very high importance; and, as he and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and others have said, it is one of great difficulty, because we must have these regulations, or some of them. We must not choke Parliament by incessant discussion; and we ought not to give a wider opportunity of wilful Parliamentary obstruction than can be avoided. We have to secure that there shall not be unnecessary conflict between the two Houses.
  Then by what means should this be achieved? I should like to quote some words which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, uttered at the end of the last debate on the Liberties of the Subject Bill. He made some observations which I thought were of great importance—perhaps more important than anything else that was said by any speaker during that debate. He suggested some means by which this problem—this Parliamentary problem—could he solved in a practical way.He said:
  "I say frankly that I have always been unhappy that statutory orders cannot be amended, but, at the same time, I do see—as I know the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, sees—the practical difficulties."
  He went on to deal with these difficulties. He then said:
  "Therefore I have been playing about, as I am sure have other noble Lords, with the idea of finding out whether there is any other way round the difficulty."
  Then he suggested that in some necessary cases, even if it were not made an invariable practice:
  "…it is open for consideration whether …Governments—not only this Government, but other Governments—might not lay such an order in draft."
  That was the suggestion—that the orders should be laid before Parliament in draft; that discussion should take the form of making suggestions for alterations to the draft; and that then the order might be made accordingly, instead of its lying on the Table to be accepted or rejected as a whole without any possibility of minor amendment being made.
  That is a suggestion which I also have advanced. It is actually embodied in one important Statute which has been on the Statute Book (though it is now there no longer), namely, the India Act, 1935, in which this very provision is applied for draft Orders in Council; and, secondly,

  475
  there was the case of the Military Service Act, 1939, which established conscription. The matter was dealt with in that way and draft regulations were actually submitted to both Houses and fully debated. That might be a possible procedure. The procedure which we are asked to follow to-day at this sitting of the House, or at any similar sitting, seems to me to be one which is most ineffective. It is quite unfair to the House to ask nobleLords to come here and consider, and perhaps to vote upon, such a question as whether dogs should be permitted on allotments—which I believe is one of the subjects to be raised to-day—or any similar matter of detail. You cannot legislate in that perfunctory fashion. These questions should be considered by a regular Parliamentary procedure. It is unfair to the public, it is unfair to great interests, and it is unfair to powerful industrial and commercial organisations, that they should suddenlyhear that on this day of November the House of Lords agreed to the permanence or the discontinuance of some regulation that has been affecting them very closely. They have heard nothing about it; there has been no opportunity of discussion. It is true that the matter has been on the Order Paper for a few days, but there is nothing approximating to our normal procedure, whether by Private Bill legislation or by Public Statute. I am convinced that both Houses of Parliament must reconsider this whole matter.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, intervened when the Lord Chancellor was speaking and asked by whom this review had been made. That is a very pertinent question. The review is going on year by year and month by month, working gradually through these regulations, and we are told that a certain number are to be repealed and a certain number are to become permanent. But, as the noble Viscount asked, who is conducting that review? The matter is surely one for the adjustment of relations between Parliament and the Government Departments (or the Executive), and this question, which is a vital one, is to be settled by one of them—namely, the Departments themselves. That is obviously wrong; and I feel, and I hope noble Lords will agree, that Parliament inboth Houses should assert itself and say that that is not adequate.
  476
  What, then, should be done immediately? Here again, I venture to make a suggestion. As this is a Parliamentary matter, simply a matter of internal Parliamentary procedure (though having wide repercussions on the public interest), as both Houses of Parliament are affected. and since the two have to be co-ordinated so that we do not have action of one kind taken in. one place and contradictory action taken in the other, I suggest for your Lordships' and the Government's consideration that the matter should be considered profoundly and at leisure by a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses—that is, of course, if the House of Commons agree. If they do not agree, then it should be considered by one Select Committee here and by one in another place. This is too complicated a matter for us to consider here this afternoon and think it possible to arrive at a conclusion. It is not even possible for us adequately to perform our duty of considering the Motions on the Order Paper with intelligence and a sense of responsibility; and it is above all impossible for us to decide what should be the permanent course of Parliament in dealing with this grave question of controls and regulations which now cover so wide a scope and which touch so many matters closely affecting the whole life of the nation.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords. I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Viscount who has just sat down for his analysis of a problem which must be worrying to noble Lords on all sides of the House. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has taken us through what he described last year as "the jungle." We are now having an annual exploration of that jungle of legislation. I think that no noble Lord on any side of the House is really happy about this matter, and, if I may say so with respect, I doubt whether in his heart the Lord Chancellor is really happy that we should have to go through this sort of procedure year after year. The Lord Chancellor told us something of the review of the past year by Her Majesty's Government of these various regulations. He told us, and we have seen in the White Paper, some of the results of that review. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, interrupted the Lord Chancellor just now to ask who was conducting the review. Personally,

  477
  I find some difficulty in accepting the view that anyone but Her Majesty's Government can have the final responsibility for saying what is or is not necessary.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Surely the noble Lord is aware that Her Majesty's Government are the servants of Parliament.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Certainly, but these regulations affect the work of so many Ministers and so many Departments that finally it must be the Government,who have to be answerable to the Legislature. It must be the Executive who must finally say, and be ready to justify, what degree of regulation is necessary.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Finally? Does the noble Lord really mean "finally"?
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sorry. The noble Viscount is right. Of course, the Legislature is supreme. But I wonder whether there could be some modification of the proposal of the noble Viscount for a Joint Select Committee of both Houses or, if not a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, a Select Committee here and another Select Committee in another place. I wonder whether there could be some Committee in which both Ministers and ordinary members of both Houses should sit together, and the Ministers responsible be obliged to bring forward before this Committee their arguments for wishing to keep in force any particular regulation. We are all throwing out our suggestions; we are all trying to be constructive, and that proposal seems to me a further development of the noble Viscount's ideas. It is a method which would allow Her Majesty's Ministers in various Departments to advance their Departmental necessities in a way which they could not possibly do before a Joint Select Committee.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I have in mind a Select Committee which could take evidence from all the Departments concerned as to the course which they thought desirable.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Yes, I believe we both have the same object in mind, though we think there are different ways in which it might be achieved. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said that he was not very impressed with the
  478
  results of the year's review. With great respect, I could net quite make out whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was satisfied, or whether he was supporting or opposingthe continuance of these regulations. I tried to follow the thread of his speech, but it was difficult to come to any positive conclusion as to what was in his mind. However, it is clear from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that he is not entirely satisfied with the progress that has been made.
  Nobody is entirely satisfied with anything, but I think we can look for a moment at some solid progress during the past year, when the legislative programme has been filled with very important measures and when thecountry has been passing through a grave economic crisis. In spite of that, we have been able to do something. Let me take one thing about which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—who I am sorry is not here to-day, though I am sure his absence is unavoidable—gibed Her Majesty's Government last year, the abolition of identity cards. Last year he said:
  "Take, for example, the matter of identity cards. When we had a debate on that matter this House went to a Division, and noble Lords determined that the whole system of identity cards should be got rid of. I rather sypathised with the attitude of the noble Lords opposite. It seemed to me a nice piece of Victorian Radicalism, which I always liked; but I understood at the same time that, unless we had identity cards, we should have difficulty "—
  and he went on to talk about the various difficulties. Then he said:
  "But no! the Opposition in those days, the Government Front Bench to-day, voted against us and nailed their colours to the mast. Identity cards were to go."
  They have gone. Surely that ought to give a great deal of satisfaction to noble Lords opposite. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, then went on to say:
  "In the meantime it seems to me that 'Set the people free' must wait."
  LORD SHEPHERD: It is true that the Order dealing with identity cards has gone, but one week after the cancellation of the identity card the Minister of Health appealed to people in the country to retain their identity cards because the information on the cards was required for health purposes. It is true now that, instead of using the old identity cards, the Health Service authorities have had to compile a list of their own.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: If I remember rightly, the Minister of Health appealed to the public to keep their identity cards while the administrative machinery was being amended, instead of putting their identity cards upon the fire.
  LORD WINSTER: Surely, while it is the case that the Minister of Health was anxious that people should retain those identity cards for those administrative purposes, the police could no longer call upon an individual to produce his identity card, which was the gravamen of the complaints about them.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is defending the continuation of the identity card, which seems to me the position which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, took up last year. I would rather he rejoiced that identity cards have gone. This is what the noble and learned Earl said last year:
  "'Set the people free' must wait. I suppose that at the present moment the Government are busy restoring confidence in the City. It does not seem to havehad very great success so far. Let us hope that when the Government have achieved their results, they will find time to 'Set the people free'."
  I wish that the noble and learned Earl had been able to be present to-day—of course, he could not be here—because he would surely have been glad to pay tribute to the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer between November, 1951, and November, 1952, in doing the very thing that he rather cast doubts about—restoring confidence at home and abroad in the financial position of this country.
  Meanwhile, however, according to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury in another place the other day, something like 1,024 orders and regulations of general application have lapsed or been annulled. Price controls have been removed from a wide range of manufactured goods, and where the Board of Trade have been concerned, prices have not gone up, but in most cases have gone down. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has been responsible for freeing various of themetals and softwoods the newspaper rationing scheme, the tonnage scheme, has been suspended; licensing of building has been eased. In many directions, thank goodness! we are increasingly "setting the people free"—and that in a year when
  480
  the Government have been greatly preoccupied in matters of absolutely vital national and international importance.
  Despite some degree of satisfaction at the review which the Lord Chancellor gave us, we must welcome the assurance that the review is going to continue, and we hope that when, in a year from now, we are faced once more with the prospect of entering the jungle, the Government will be able to come forward and say, first, that a larger number of regulations than this year are to be revoked, in whole or partially; and, secondly, that if they do not wish, as I understand, to enact regulations into Acts of Parliament which are renewable every year, they will by that time have sifted out what they wish to embody in permanent legislation which will be brought before Parliament in due course. I do not believe that any noble Lord on this side of the House. certainly none on the Liberal Benches, nor, I should think, any on the Opposition Benches, in the majority of cases, likes placing in the hands of the Executive such sweeping powers as remain to-day—for example, in Defence Regulations 53 and 55, the requisitioning of property other than land, and the general control of industry.
  Those are enormous powers, and we have to rely upon good and sensible government, from whichever side of the House it may come, not to abuse its opportunities by taking advantage of those powers in any sweeping way. It is fundamentally wrong that such powers should exist in the hands of the Executive. I do not believe that they should be exercised by the Executive, except by Act of Parliament, having gone through the appropriate procedure in such cases of importance as those that I have mentioned. The Statutory Orders procedure, as amended, might work for lesser powers, but I believethat no person who has sound conservative views or sound constitutional views, to whatever Party he belongs, can approve of the Executive's maintaining those powers as at the present time. I hope that, in one year from now, we shall see a position different from that which exists to-day. I do not think we need be dissatisfied with what has been achieved. I do not think that any of us is happy at the present position. I believe that, like Oliver Twist, we ought to ask Her Majesty's Government for more progress in releasing the public from the

  481
  menace of powers vested in the Executive which, though they may never be used wrongly, should at the same time not be there.
  4.41 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this debate which began as one of considerable constitutional importance, has, I think, developed into one of outstanding constitutional importance as a result of proposals which have been made by more than one of your Lordships to-day. I should like to say a word or two about that in due course. Before doing so, however, I should like to offer a few observations on the Motions which have been moved by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack.
  The last occasion on which we had what one might call a substantial discussion about this matter was, I think, two years ago, when the Motions were moved by the noble and learned Earl who now leads the Opposition. I have been much interested in reading the speeches which were made in your Lordships' House on that occasion. The main speech from the then Oppositionwas made by the noble and learned Viscount who came into the House a few minutes ago. He made a very eloquent speech, in the first part of which he upbraided the Government of that time for having continued the operation of these regulations for a five-year period. This point was repeated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack this afternoon. Both noble Lords took the view that it was wrong that powers of this kind should be extended for more than a period of one year at a time. My Lords, I personally, and I think many other noble Lords who sit on these Benches, are quite unrepentant. that we should have had a period of five years in which to look at the problem in the round, so to speak, to see what: the position of the community was going to be after the, enormous revolution of the war years, to reach a proper decision as to which of the regulations could reasonably be dispensed with and which ought to be continued. I suggest that after a period of such stress as that of war, that is much better done by allowing a period of time in which to sit back and study the situation. I submit that the fact that that five-year period was taken was, in retrospect, really a valuable thing.
  482
  The noble and learned Viscount went on to condemn some of the regulations in rather forcible terms, and in particular he picked out Regulation 55. In effect, I think he suggested that with such a regulation having the force of law no country could regard itself as free. I observe that although that regulation may be modified to some extent, it is not one of those which the Government propose to repeal. I observe, too, that the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat is very anxious about it. But surely the point is that in a time of stress and emergency such as the present, the Government cannot do without some such power as this. It may be that it need not be in these exact terms. For example, paragraph (b) is for regulating the carrying on of any undertaking engaged in essential work. That may concern essential work in connection with the war in which this country is engaged at the present time. It is interesting to note how easy it is to criticise powers of this kind when one is in Opposition or when, asis the case with the noble and learned Viscount, you have not to bear the burden and responsibility of Government.
  Again, I was rather interested in the speech of the noble Viscount who leads the Liberal Opposition, who unfortunately has now left the House. On the last occasion he was distinctly more moderate in his condemnation of the surviving powers than he has been to-day. To-day, little progress if any has been made, but at that time he appreciated that the matter was much more complicated than that ofjust "setting the people free," which he seemed to think could be done quite easily this afternoon. He said then that the matter was much more complicated, and that all Parties, however reluctantly, have to assent to a continuation of these matters; and so he went on. I suggest that that is a much sounder appreciation of the situation than the position which he was taking up this afternoon. He condemned out of hand the fact that there were still 14,000 people with the power to enter upon premises. I shouldlike to have that figure of 14,000 analysed a little more before it was brought down to the figure of 200, which he suggested would be a reasonable figure. Surely this figure of 14,000 includes all sorts of inspectors who go into factories, workshops and other places

  483
  of that kind, in order to satisfy themselves that regulations which are regarded as essential in the interests of the health and safety of the workpeople are properly carried out. We cannot condemn these powers without a fuller knowledge of what is actually going on.
  Then I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, whose illness I am sure all noble Lords have watched with anxiety during these last few weeks, and recently with so much encouragement and hope that he may before long be restored to us and be taking his position again on the Benches opposite. The noble Lord condemned out of hand the 10,000 legislative enactments which, at that time, he seemed to think could easily be swept away. When one looks at the proposals which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has put forward this afternoon, one wonders, in the light of Lord Woolton's speech, whether the old tag about nascitur ridiculus mus has not been illustrated very forcibly.
  One of the subjects which worries me particularly in respect of this matter is the ease of repeal. It may well be that all members of your Lordships' House are anxious, as a matter of general policy, to have a substantial number of these powers revoked. But I do think we ought to have a better opportunity of deciding which of them, upon the merits, ought to be revoked. Some of them have been referred to this afternoon by other speakers, who suggest that there is still a strong case for retaining them. Is it not a serious thing that some of these legislative enactments (because that is what they are) should be repealable in this way without the repeal being brought before either House of Parliament? If it is a question of repealing an Act of Parliament itself, that cannot be done, and it is right andproper and essential that it should not be done, without going through the Parliamentary machine in the ordinary way. But quite a number of these enactments are just as important as the enactments contained in Statutes, and yet they can disappear on the ipse dixit of a Minister. My noble friend Lord Milner has a Motion down in regard to this matter; therefore I will not steal more than one clap of his thunder. But I do suggest that this is a very important matter and one to which your Lordships should give close attention.
  484
  Finally, I should like to support very strongly indeed the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that much more care and consideration should be given to the whole problem of delegated legislation, and I would urge that the Government should consider sympathetically the machinery which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, suggested should be set up for this purpose. Ever since the Report of the Donoughmore Committee was published, the vital importance of this problem of delegated legislation has been evident not only to the legal profession but to the administrators in the Civil Service, and, indeed, to all people who take any interest in the political situation. It does seem to me that the time has come when, instead of just talking about it in general discussions of this kind, as we so often do, we should make a determined effort to solve the problem. I do not feel that this suggestion that there is a bureaucratic despotism, that the civil servants wish to be autocrats, is really borneout by the facts of the situation. But I do believe that the sort of inertia which exists in Government Departments leads to an unnecessary use of statutory rules and orders. A sort of momentum develops which, when the machine is once turning round, grindsout more and more orders without sufficient care being given in the first instance to the question of whether they are necessary or not. After the machine has once started revolving, the inevitable result is that hundreds of these orders—quite a substantial proportion of which, I suggest, are unnecessary—reach the Statute Book.
  I have sometimes thought that if the Departments could have a ration of statutory orders fixed for them at the beginning of each year, they might be very much more careful about those which they produce, because they would realise quite well that they must keep some in hand in order to be able to propose necessary orders towards the end of the year. Though that may seem rather a fantastic suggestion, it might lead to aconsiderable diminution of the numbers of orders and regulations made, and might lead to our getting regulations and orders which are really valuable and necessary, instead of so many of these rather "half-baked" ones which at present become the law of the land. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who, we

  485
  know, is very interested in this matter—he was a member of the Donoughmore Committee and he is one of the most distinguished lawyers of the day—will use his great influence with the Government to see that some sort of machinery of this kind is set up, and thus a really important contribution may be made to the constitutional development of this country.
  4.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has just delivered, but I am bound to say that I could not understand how he squared his statements towards the end of the speech with some of his earlier statements. He appeared to think that many of these regulations had been passed, without adequate thought, by the machines of the various Ministries; and I believe I am correct in quoting the noble Lord as saying that he thought that many of them were entirely unnecessary. I should have thought that in that case he would be delighted to find in existence such a simple method of getting rid of those regulations which he regretted.
  LORD CHORLEY: I do not feel that it is a satisfactory method to get rid of them on the mere ipse dixit ofthe Minister, without Parliament which, after all, is the legislative body of the country, having any real opportunity of considering the matter.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: Yes, but the noble Lord objected to the issue of the regulations on the ipse dixit, not of the Minister but of his bureaucrats. I am bound to say that I remember how night after night in another place—
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords. I am loath to interrupt the noble Viscount again, but surely he realises that these things cannot become law without Parliament having an opportunity of objecting to them. But they can be repealed without Parliament being brought in at all.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: I have a vivid recollection of making attempt after attempt in another place, during the years 1945 to 1950, to get adequate explanation from Ministers belonging to the Party opposite as to why particular regulations were being issued. I have an equally vivid recollection of how angered the
  486
  Party opposite were When occasionally we kept them up late at night, seeking to extract reasons—which, when we got them, we considered inadequate—for the issue of so many of these regulations.
  LORD LAWSON: From the Minister of Agriculture for instance?
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: it only shows does it not, as one noble Lord said earlier, the difference between being in Opposition and being on the Government Benches.
  One matter which I wish to raise is a comparatively small one, though it affects a large number of people in this country. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that he would do his best to answer either noble Lords who wanted to know why regulations had been dropped or those who wanted to know why regulations had not been dropped. I come in the latter category. I do not expect that the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer this question, and I shall be quite happy if whoever replies on behalf of the Government on December 2 can give the reasons for which I am asking. The matter that I wish to raise concerns the domestic pig keepers, of whom there are very large numbers and who, during the war and since, have made a very great contribution to the supply of foodstuffs in this country, not only for their own families but in augmenting the common stock for the Ministry of Food. In the old days, the regulations affecting permission to kill a pig, and the number of months you had to keep a pig, were no doubt necessary —in fact I had soma small responsibility for putting the original regulations through. There was, of course, in those days of acutemeat shortage, some reason to try to prevent the development of a black market in pork. But at the present moment it seems that pork is likely shortly to become almost a glut on the market.
  I should very much like to know why, in the course of these very careful investigations into the various regulations, it has not been found possible to abolish these particular regulations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What is the number, please?
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: I am afraid that I cannot quote the number. It is among

  487
  the Ministry of Food regulations, and one of the many covered by those mystic numerals with which we have been dealing to-day. There seems to me to be no inherent reason why a man should have to own a pig for four months before he is allowed to kill it. This is a regulation which was introduced not during the war but comparatively recently. Nor is there any particular reason, so far as I can see, why a man should have to give notice in a large number of forms that he proposes to kill a pig within the next fortnight. In the course of filling up these forms (we all have to fill up forms, and no doubt your Lordships have done it many times), there is a stage at which, in applying for a licence to kill a pig, one is told that this is not a licence to slaughter a pig,but merely a licence to apply for a licence to slaughter a pig. I cannot help feeling that in November, 1952, these regulations are no longer necessary. I hope that in the next few weeks or, possibly, months the Ministry of Agriculture will abolish all rationing of feeding stuffs; and if that takes place, I trust that these regulations restricting the killing of pigs will also be abolished. I had occasion the other day in your Lordships' House to regret that one regulation had been allowed to lapse, and that in future dogs were to be allowed to do what they liked on allotments. It seems rather ironical that dogs should be allowed to do what they like on allotments while the unfortunate owner and breeder of the domestic pig is not allowed to do what he wantswith his own pig.
  5.1 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to turn to a different aspect of the subject from that propounded by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, whose interest in smallholders and pigs we all acknowledge. I want to discuss the broad question, which I understandhas already been touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate and for not hearing several of the previous speakers, owing to an important business engagement elsewhere. It seems to me that we are now almost back to where we were
  488
  at the beginning. Recently I have been re-reading Macaulay's History of England and was interested to note there how much the early development of Parliament was affected by the difficulty of the Legislature in keeping an eye on the Crown and the Officers of the Crown. No doubt in the year 4,000 some learned professor at the University of Tomsk, or Omsk, writing of the death of Western civilization—if Professor Toynbee is correct—will telescope the two events, and people will be told that what happened in the twentieth century was a subtle move by the Executive to get round the difficulties they experienced with Parliament in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
  Be that as it may, we all feel that with the present burden of Parliamentary work we cannot expect to consider every detail of the legislative process, especially the sort of detail which is so often the subject of these orders. But I believe that we should consider making a radical change in the constitution of Parliament. This is not a matter which ought to be left to detailed consideration; it needs a real change of policy and principle. When a few years ago I was a Back Bencher in anotherplace, it seemed to me and to many of my colleagues on the Back Benches that our individual time and labour were largely wasted. We knew, of course, that we were there to support the Government and, in spite of the opinion of the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, I believe that it is an important function for Back Benchers in another place to support their own Government. But so far as we ourselves were concerned, it always seemed to us to involve a great waste of time. It seems to me that Members of both Houses of Parliament could perform more useful functions if we had the committee system which exists in the United States and on the Continent. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has already touched on this matter. If he has, I would support him on it.
  During the investigations of Parliamentary Committees of the various aspects of national life, their members would acquire a large amount of knowledge. They would hear witnesses from the Services, the Departments, the industries and the institutions involved, and when it became necessary for the Government to

  489
  promote legislation, whether in the form of a Bill or as an order, they would be well aware of the main facts and of the necessity or otherwise of legislation. It is at that stage thatwe can best assert control of the Government. I know that this suggestion is bound to raise objection in the minds of those who believe it would be a complete reversal of our policy in this country, under which the Executive is supposed to be completely distinct from the Legislature. That may be so. But if the present system is not working and the Legislature is once more where it was some hundreds of years ago, unable properly to control the Executive, then we must think of some other way. I suggest, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that we should make a radical examination of this question, either by a Select Committee of both Houses or otherwise, and ascertain whether it is not at that early stage of legislation and by a continual examination of toe process of government that we can best achieve the results we desire.
  I think that much of the efforts and talents of noble Lords in this House is wasted. There are a great many noble Lords of inestimable worth, with great qualifications to speak on various subjects, who come here after distinctive careers in the Services and elsewhere. What use do we make of their services? Hardly any. Occasionally, perhaps once a year, they speak on a subject of which they have special knowledge, but otherwise they are not heard. That seems to me a great waste of talent. If we had a series of committees, composed of Members of both Houses, we should have on each committee the Members who had special knowledge of the subjects dealt with, and thus use their great experience and talents. If other countries could get a Second Chamber with the distinguished members we have here in this House, they would be delighted. When I was a Minister, the representative of a certain country—I will not say which country, because it might embarrass the gentleman concerned—came to me and asked how they could get in his country a Second Chamber like the House of Lords.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The hereditary system?
  LORD OGMORE: I do not want to go into that, because both hereditary and
  490
  newly created Peers slake great contributions to this House, and I do not want to set one against the other. Whatever the contribution of the hereditary Peers or of the Peers of first creation, the representative of this country was much struck by the calibre of the members of your Lordships' House and he wanted to know how he could establish a similar chamber in his own country. I must say I was in some difficulty about telling him how he could do it, because I do not think one can create a House of Lords of this character. However that may be, it adds point to what I was saying. In my view, Parliament fails very distinctly to make use of the talents of t he Members of both Houses.
  5.10 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am intervening now—and I am quite ready to give way if the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, prefers that I should give way—filly because it is thought that in this debate there should be a certain division of labour between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself. As your Lordships know, the Lord Chancellor is technically in charge of the Bill and of the debate, and is very ready, by leave of the House, to answer any detailed questions which have been raised. But there have been one or two questions of a much broader character raised on constitutional issues, and I thought, as Leader of the House, that it might be of use to noble Lords if I said a word or two about them. Before I come to that, however, I feel that I should, like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has just spoken, make a most sincere apology to your Lordships for not being present at the beginning of this debate. I can assure the House that the discourtesy was entirely unintentional and connected with the work of my office—I was, in fact, meeting the Prime Minister of Ceylon, who is the first to arrive for the Commonwealth Economic Conference.
  As I have said, I do not propose to go into details; but the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and other noble Lords do raise matters of great moment and importance, and I feel that I should discuss them with your Lordships. I would say at once that I do not in the least complain, either of the issues that have been

  491
  raised or of the tone of noble Lords' speeches in any part of the House. There has been no heat engendered by these discussions, but only a genuine desire on all our parts to combine and find a solution to a problem which we all realise is a very real one. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the moderate and sensible speech which he delivered to your Lordships, stressed the necessity—at least, I understood him so to do—of the maximum Parliamentary control of delegated legislation. I imagine that we should all agree with that. Clearly, we in Parliament are responsible to the British people, and it is for us, if we can, to find some means by which we can adequately fulfil our responsibilities.
  I would entirely agree with the noble Lord that this growth of indirect legislation, which is the result of the increasing complexity of the modern world, faces us with—I do not say an entirely new situation, but one of particularly increasing acuteness. That is a problem that none of us wouldwish to burke. As I understand it, the main proposal put forward by the noble Lord was what I might describe—and I think he so described it —as a new Donoughmore Committee. The noble Lord will not expect me to give a definite answer about that to-day; it is a matter about which careful consultation will be required. But I certainly should not rule out (I think I can go as far as this) some sort of inquiry of that kind on all the broad issues raised by this question, either in the form of another Donoughmore Committee or in some other form. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, suggested a Joint Select Committee. I am not going to say to your Lordships that such a thing will happen, but I personally should not rule it out or think that it would be a bad thing.
  We should need, of course, not merely to reduplicate what the Donoughmore Committee have already done. The Lord Chancellor was a member of that Committee, as your Lordships know, and I am sure he would tell you that there was much which was discussed at that time, although it was some years ago, which would be equally applicable to-day; and to spend an immense amount of the time of important people merely in going over the same ground would be a waste of the time of Parliament. But, as I have said, the situation, though it has not changed
  492
  altogether in nature, has changed in degree. The problems which the Donoughmore Committee had to face have become more important problems still, at any rate in this particular aspect of their labours. This great mass of delegated legislation has become bigger. It became bigger in the war, because Parliament under those conditions simply could not deal with the executive actions that had to be taken. And once you get increases of that kind, they are rather aptto remain and are very difficult to get rid of. So it is a more difficult problem than it was at that time. But an inquiry of the kind that has been suggested, would, no doubt, help us to find a way out of our difficulties; and to that extent I think it would very likely be justified.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested one method for maintaining the control of Parliament. He said that there might be amendment of regulations. I do not think he was very enthusiastic about it himself, and, if I may say so respectfully, I would agree with him. After all, the danger of amending every regulation is that the time taken in this House, and even more in another place where they are perhaps not quite so economical with the time of Parliament as we are here, might well lead to a situation when the duties of Parliament became almost impossible for the Members to carry out. There are only 625 Members of another place, and only a comparatively limited number of your Lordships in this House, and we could not possibly deal with the immense volume of Amendments which might be proposed for each regulation. I do not, therefore, think that that is a practical proposition.
  There is, however, the other suggestion to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred (I think it washis suggestion originally, or even perhaps my own: at any rate, we both favoured it in the last debate) that in certain cases where the regulations seemed to raise subjects of importance or controversy they could be laid in draft: this draft could be discussed by Parliament, and any noble Lord or Member of Parliament who had suggestions to make would make them in debate. In the light of those debates the draft would be taken back and considered by the Government, and could be amended to take account of any useful suggestions put forward.

  493
  That is alt alternative possibility which I think might well he considered. There may be snags in it which I do not know about, but it does seem to me a very reasonable suggestion.
  There was another suggestion put forward just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, of a much more radical and drastic kind. As I understand it, he would set up the committee system which exists to-day in the United States. He certainly will not expect me to express an opinion on that proposal this afternoon. But that and other proposals might naturally come before an inquiry, if it took place. All I can say this afternoon on this point is that I will put forward to the Government the suggestions which have been made—I cannot go further than that. If it proves possible to take advantage of them, I imagine that it will be for the Government to talk the matter over with the various Opposition Parties.
  I should now like to say a few words on that part of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in which he spoke of the broad issues of the liberties of the subject. We have heard at various times other extremely agreeable and inspiring speeches of the same character from the noble Viscount. I have always felt, if I may say so without impertinence, that he is in a happy situation, because he can say just what he feels inclined to say, knowing very well that his own Party, in practice, is never likely to have to de al with the awkward situation with which the other Parties may at any moment be faced.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Never use the word "never."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I substitute "not immediately likely?" I remember years ago, when I was new in politics, I went down to a meeting to take the chair for a Conservative Member of Parliament.This Member made a speech in which he said: "The Labour Party promise this; the Liberal Party promise that; but I, who have had the misfortune to represent you for fourteen years, cannot afford luxuries of that kind." I feel a little like that this afternoon. It was not always so. There was a time when the Liberal Party—the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, may say that there will again be such a time—were in power
  494
  with a great majority. During that period, they were not entirely immune from the same sort of criticisms which have been levelled by the noble Viscount against our Party this afternoon. I have here a quotation from a leading article in The Times of June 22, 1909, when there was a Liberal Government in power, of which I think the noble Viscount himself was a very distinguished member. This is what it said:
  "It is not only in the Finance Bill that the Government is laying the axe to the root of our liberties. The worst feature of that Bill is reproduced in other legislation. All over the field there is a deliberate withdrawal of the main security for our liberties, a determined exclusion of the subject from the protection of the taw, and an assertion of the right of a bureaucracy to dispose of the interests of the subject without judicial control of any kind. Alike in the Irish Land Bill, the Finance Bill, and the Town Planning Bill, a Government Department is empowered to do exactly what seems good to it with every man's properly. Appeal to the Courts of Justice and to the Common Law is deliberately refused. We are in fact relapsing into the condition from which the Duma is trying to extricate Russia."
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It is shocking for the present Prime Minister to have been guilty of all that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad to see that both the present Prime Minister and the noble Viscount have had a conversion since those days. The fact remains that the real trouble is that there are certain restrictions of liberty which, in our heart of hearts, we all admit will be necessary and must be necessary in the modern world. The object—and I think this should apply to all Parties—is to make those restrictions as few and as light as we possibly can. Broadly speaking, I would have thought that certainly in this House, although we may not agree with each other on everything, that would represent the opinion of all serious persons. And indeed, if I may say so, that was admitted last time this subject was debated here. I do not know if other noble Lords have looked up that debate, but when I knew that, we were going to discuss these topics to-day I did look it up. It was a debate of great distinction and, I think, worthy of the best traditions of this House. It was a debate, too, which was remarkable in one particular respect: that not only was there a broad general harmony between the representatives of all the various Parties, but there was, I thought, almost a virtual identity of view.

  495
  The debate was opened by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—who I am very sorry is not here to-day—in a speech which he delivered with all the grace and eloquence with which we are familiar. In that speech, in addition to expounding the details of the regulations which were covered by the Bill—as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has to-day—he delivered himself of a number of general propositions which I certainly should not dispute, and which I think were, broadly speaking, not disputed by the noble Viscounts, Lord Samuel and Lord Simon, who followed him. The first was that the noble and learned Earl recognised fully the dangers which arise or might arise from a weakening of Parliamentary control—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to-day—but Lord Jowitt emphasized that in his view the power of Parliament over the regulations which he was introducing was retained through the procedure of Negative Resolutions. That was the view of the Labour Party when they were sitting on this side of the House. I think they are not quiteso certain about it now. Possibly that is a natural transition or modification of mind in moving from one side of the House to another. At any rate, at that time, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, held that view.
  But he stressed that there was another danger—that unless there was some measure of delegated legislation there would be—I use his own words:
  "A cluttering up of the Parliamentary machine to the detriment of the efficiency of Parliament."
  That is very much the point that I was myself making from this Bench a minute or two ago, and I think it is a point which is common ground between the various Parties. And, lastly, he said, with what I may call pardonable pride:
  "We have already accomplished a good deal in the way of getting rid of unwanted powers and in putting on the Statute Book powers that are permanently needed."
  That is almost exactly what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said to your Lordships this afternoon. There is nothing in all that, whether it is saidby noble Lords opposite or noble Lords here, with which most of us would disagree. Indeed, as I say, we all recognise that in the modern State certain measures of delegated legislation are
  496
  necessary. Of course, a great deal depends upon what regulations and what controls are retained; and especially is that true if there is any question of making them permanent, as he mentioned in the words I have just quoted, and as is the case with certain regulations to-day. That was the feature in the other debatewhich caused the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, with all his experience, the most anxiety. From what he said, I think he was not worried at all about the then Lord Chancellor himself. He felt quite certain that the noble and learned Earl would not wish to gotoo far. But he was not absolutely certain about some of the noble Earl's colleagues. At any rate, broadly speaking, I repeat that it is the character of the regulations and the character of the controls, more than the existence of those regulations and controls, that really matters.
  That, no doubt, is what noble Lords opposite will scrutinise most carefully in the Bill which is introduced this afternoon. When they look at our Bill I hope that they will recognise that things, by and large, are moving steadily—perhaps they will say not fast enough; I do not think they will say too fast—in the direction in which we all want them to go. Of that great mass of regulations which was inevitably produced by the war, when there was no time for the ordinary processes of Parliament, more and more are disappearing every year into the limbo of the past. As your Lordships know, there are quite a number which have been cut out this year. I hope there will be more next year and I hope there will be more and more as the years pass, whatever Government may be in power. Of the remainder, none, I think, is to be continued for the additional five years which was enacted in the original Bill. We have gone back to the system we used to know before the war, when Parliament was asked to give its approval year by year; and that, I think, is a thoroughly healthy tendency.
  LORD SILKIN: I should just like to mention that the annual review is provided for in the original Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In any case, I am sure the noble Lord will approve of it. In addition, there does, of course, remain this small residue, to

  497
  which I have already referred, of regulations which are to be made permanent. I do not know whether your Lordships have looked at them, but they really are in fact not very spectacular, and they are singularly unalarming. They are not, as I think some speakers have tended to suggest, widespread restrictions on human liberty. There is one which has been referred to since I have been in the House, the regulation that dogs should not be allowed on allotments, or should be restrained on allotments. Your Lordships may think it right, or you may think it wrong, that dogs should be restrained on allotments. If any of us had an allotment and on that allotment there were, say, chickens, we should probably think that the regulation was right. But, in any case, this comparatively minor restriction on the civil liberty of the owners of dogs which go on allotments is really not a very serious matter. Then there is another regulation which concerns cards which are issued to seamen to enable them to land in foreign ports. I do not suppose that anybody really objects to that. It is purely an administrative convenience and not a restriction on liberties. All the things that have been or are to be made permanent are of that kind: there is nothing very dreadful about them. I should not complain if the Opposition felt inclined to poke some fun at the Government over regulations of this kind.
  LORD OGMORE: May I ask a question regarding one subject which the noble Marquess has mentioned? I was very much interested in what he said about the question of dogs on allotments. As I understand it, the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, was complaining that the Government were not continuing that regulation, either permanently or temporarily.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Apparently I could not have been worse informed. But no doubt the noble Lord will be delighted that it has gone.
  LORD OGMORE: No, we are sorry. We agree that it ought to be kept on.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In that event the Lord Chancellor will no doubt take into account what has been said or what may he said by any later speaker who may revert to the subject,
  498
  as he will do in all these matters, which are all for consideration.
  It is, of course, one of the main privileges and, indeed, pleasures of the Opposition to "chivvy" the Government on matters of this kind, and they may well claim that it is their constitutional duty. But I do not think that we ought to take seriously—or that they mean us to take seriously—all they have said this afternoon on the question of the actual restriction of liberty. I think all noble Lords know that the things we are doing in these instruments are all of a mild character. They areprobably no more, and perhaps less, than the Opposition themselves would have felt obliged to do if the fortune of politics had put them on these Benches. That is all I want to say to-day. The detailed questions will be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor afterwards. Indeed, I think it would perhaps have been better if I had left all of them to him. But I would add once more that the Government fully appreciate the importance of the larger issues that have been raised and that we shall give full consideration to what has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
  5.33 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Marquess for intervening at this stage. With a good deal of what he said we are in complete agreement. What emerges from this debate is that everybody recognises that you cannot control a modern State by Acts of Parliament, with Amendments, Committee stages, Report stages and the rest. It is impossible. You must have a batch of regulations. But I think that to call them "Defence" or "Emergency" Regulations is becoming rather ridiculous. These regulations are part of the ordinary machinery of government.
  I should like to bring this debate back for a moment—modestly, and very inadequately after the speech of the noble Marquess—to another point of view, and to say a word as a Parliamentary craftsman. How are we, as a Parliament, to cope with this problem? Great efforts were made to meet it by the Donoughmore Committee. As the noble Marquess has said, in consequence of the development of the modern social State there is bound to be enacted a mass of this stuff. We as a Parliament have to face

  499
  it and to decide what we have to do to control it. It is not to be supposed that nothing has been done, nor is it to be supposed that these regulations which we wish to control are derived only from the Acts of Parliament named on the Paper to-day. There are masses of Acts of Parliament—the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows it in connection with the Town and Country Planning Act—which not only give the Minister power to make regulations or orders but give him power to interpret orders and to prohibit the subject from taking those orders into the courts of law to be examined. There was the "Henry VIII Clause," which gives him power to "trim up" an Act of Parliament if the draftsmen have not been sufficiently precise.
  All these things are part of the process of government of a modern State, and the problem is: how can this House and the other place set up some machinery which will exercise that power of control? The Donoughmore Committee thought they had done that. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, did not speak in this debate, because he was a member of that Committee as, indeed, was the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. The members of that Committee really hoped that they had created something which would be able to control any measure which delegated subsidiary legislation. What did they erect? So far as this House is concerned, they erected the Special Orders Committee. That Committee is directed to examine only those orders which require Affirmative Resolutions. Orders maybe just laid; or they may require an Affirmative Resolution; or they may be subject to annulment, under the Negative Resolution procedure. They may be imposing a charge, but we in this House have nothing to do with that: that is a House of Commons affair.
  The Special Orders Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the Lord Chairman, is instructed to inquire into certain matters and to report to this House. Bear in mind, my Lords, that the purpose of this is to see whether it is possible to imposeskilled Parliamentary control on the bureaucracy. This is the Committee's Report on the Order which the Chancellor is to move later, the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1952. Of that Order the Special Orders Committee say this:
  500
  "That in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle;
  "That the Order is 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 present an Address to Her Majesty praying that the Order be made."
  That report was (according to the Minute)
  "read and ordered to lie on the Table."
  Reading that Report of the Committee, I ask what possible guidance is there as to how we are to vote on this Resolution. There is none. Yet the Committee have fulfilled the duties laid down in the Standing Orders which control their function.
  The other House paid us the compliment, when setting up their own Committee, of copying a good many of the items which appear in our own Standing Orders. The points in their instructions are to call attention to any order on the grounds: first, that it imposes a charge—that does not arise here: that is their affair; second, that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period; third, that it appears tomake some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made; fourth, that it purports to have retrospective effect where a parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide; fifth, that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication; sixth, that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending notification to Mr. Speaker; and, seventh, that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation.
  These are all guides to the Statutory Orders Committee in the House of Commons. There has been to-day a diffuse debate, about dogs on allotments and many other things. How could all the agricultural Members gather together to talk about dogs on allotments, and other groups talk aboutrequisitioning derelict houses for refugees? It is absurd. It needs a sub-committee—a more authoritative body than our existing Committee or a Statutory Orders Committee—it might be a Committee of both Houses, a sort of permanent tribunal, which should

  501
  examine these matters. The difficulty here, of course, is the parity of power in the matter of statutory orders. The Parliament Act does not apply to statutory orders. If your Lordships negative a statutory order it is finished, Parliament Act or no Parliament Act. The question therefore arises, when you come to the matter of examining the statutory orders and setting up a Joint Committee: are you to have an equality of membership between the two Houses? That is one point. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, knows, we are thinking about what was done between 1906 and 1910. That is what actuates the minds of many people in considering what powers should be given to the House of Lords. And therefore I do not see the House of Commons agreeing to anything that makes for a parity of power.
  On the other hand, what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said about the talent available in this House is perfectly true. There is a mass of talent and it is available for more time, and with no responsibility to constituents—there are both time and expertise. These are the elements that might make up some form of tribunal. If the tribunal then said: "This is a good thing," or "This is a bad thing," you could do away with the positive or negative Prayer and youcould come to a straight debate on the concentrated issue, which would have value. I give this warning. Once you have done all this, you always come to a dead end, because, as soon as you have examined it and said; "This is monstrous; it cannot be that this regulation should he passed," then a civil servant will come and tender evidence to show that it is intra vires the Minister; and once a thing is intra vires, you can say no more about it. It is his power; he can do it and no committee or joint committee in the world is going to help in the least to protect the privileges of the subject. What do you do then? I do not know. That is really a dead end. Of course, you can say: "What? The man has power to do this? How does that arise?" You can then read somewonderful words about the power of the Minister to make an order in certain circumstances. Of course, anybody who has been in a Department (I am not attacking bureaucrats at all) knows that the official wants to be "on the safe side" and wants to put in something so that he cannot be
  502
  questioned. In the old days, they used to say: "This shall not be questioned in any court of law." That is what Lord Hewart objected to. I wish that the noble Marquess or someone else could tell us what we should do.
  Finally, I make only one suggestion, and it is this. You could have an ex post facto examination of the use of these powers. There are two very useful Committees elsewhere, the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. The Estimates Committee cannot interfere with the Estimates, but they can sit round and examine what the Government have done with the money that was granted. They can say: "You have made a wasteful use of this. You did wrong there." There is no executive action to follow, but the moral value of the Estimates Committee is very great. The Public Accounts Committee is another example. The Public Accounts Committee is a sort of audit, but it has great authority. It does not make its Report until long afterwards, but this Report has considerable influence in the shaping of policy. If it were possible—this is perhaps just a jejune suggestion—I should have some body, some tribunal of great authority which would say, "No. It is intra vires. We think it is bad and we should throw it out, but at the same time we want to inquire how it is that the Minister of Works can, for instance, depute somebody to do these things in this vague way. We think it is high time this power was taken away from him." Maybe they could from time to time review all these delegating powers of the Minister and report to Parliament. Then it would he Parliament alone who would deal with the matter by Resolution. Perhaps your Lordships will for give me for making a suggestion of this humdrum and pedestrian kind, but I do feel, with my learned friend Lord Silkin, that it is a very big constitutional question which Parliament has to face, because if Parliament cannot control the Welfare State then both are in danger.
  5.46 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, as the matter has been mentioned this afternoon, I hope your Lordships will permit me to refer for two or three minutes to the matter of the seamen's identity cards. I am closely connected with one of the several seafarers' associations and I am

  503
  informed that not only do all the seafarers' associations strongly approve of these seamen's identity cards but that it is by their express wish, and in response to their representations, that these cards will be retained. The fact is that the seaman is the only Britisher whotravels abroad without a passport. He goes to a foreign port and he may in his innocence commit some breach of a local by-law. It may even happen that, owing to the vile quality of the alcohol sold in the port, he may find himself a little less lucid and tranquil than is his customary wont. In cases of that sort, if he has on him a document proving his identity it will frequently keep him out of trouble with the local police who, on seeing this document, are likely to treat him reasonably and make no great "to-do" about it.
  I do not know that the seafarers' associations are particularly fond of the term "seaman's identity card" but I have an idea that they are going to be called "seamen's cards" instead of "seamen's identity cards", which removes the last obstacle in the matter. I should just like to repeat that the seafarers' associations not merely approve of this matter but are very grateful indeed to the Ministry of Transport for the helpful and courteous way in which they have been treated in the matter.
  5.48 p.m.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS had given notice of an Amendment to the above Motion, to add at the end of the Motion:
  "but that no Defence Regulation at present in force by virtue of the said Act be revoked in whole or in part or varied unless first an humble Address be presented by each House of Parliament to Her Majesty praying that it be so revoked or varied."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a most valuable and interesting debate, as I think most of your Lordships will agree. I am bound to say, if I may be forgiven for saying so, that I have found it highly amusing in many respects. I have listened to a great many debates where I have heard speeches denouncing the moral and the unconstitutional nature of these regulations, that they were contrary to all our ancient liberties, that they were frustrating and hindering our manufacturers and our industrialists; and yet now we find that some of those who through the
  504
  years have denounced all these regulations are asking the House of Lords on a simple Motion to approve the re-enactment of a great majority of them.
  I was also interested to hear the noble Marquess say that really there was very little in these regulations; that the restrictions were very small, and so on and so forth. I should have thought that if they were of so little effect, that was a very good reason for cancelling or revoking the great majority of them. In fact, if your Lordships will be so good as to look at page 3 of the White Paper (I will not trouble to go through the whole of these regulations) I should have thought many of your Lordships would take great exception to the continuance of some of them. For example, Regulation 47C gives authority for certain aliens to act as masters or officers of British ships. A moment or two ago I saw here the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who is a shipowner. I should have thought he would have taken great exception to authority being given for aliens to act as masters of British ships in these days, when I believe there are masters who are not fully employed on either British or other ships.
  Then, if your Lordships would look a little further down, at Defence Regulations 51, which concerns taking possession of land, or Regulation 54, the powers there given are very wide. I cannot think that your Lordships would approve their continuance. Again, Regulation 55, "General control of industry," of which, some mention has been made, was denounced, I remember, by no less a person than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as being the most notorious of these regulations and the one to which the greatest exception should be taken. And yet it still appears amongst the regulations which this Government propose to continue. Again there is the small Regulation 57D, which relates to the exemption of acetylene from the Explosives Act. One would have thought that any review, however casual, would have resulted in that small and unimportant regulation being done away with.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Lord has quoted me, perhaps I might indicate that I said that the regulations which I thought were rather small and unimportant were those which were

  505
  to be made permanent and incorporated in legislation. There are others which have been continued from year to year, which I hope in time it will be possible to remove. I quite agree that they go further. But I should not like it to be thought that I was saying that the last ones were small and unimportant.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Marquess. Perhaps I was under the wrong impression. Whether that be so or not, one would have thought that if there had been a review of any substance a great many more of these regulations might have been revoked or allowed toexpire. The Lord Chancellor, if I may be permitted to say so, gave a most valuable exposition of the position and spent a great deal of time in trying to convince your Lordships that much had been clone in this matter of review. With the greatest respectto the Lord Chancellor, I cannot think that that was the case; otherwise many of these regulations which I have pointed out to your Lordships, and others which had time permitted I could have particularised, would surely have been done away with. It appears clear, as I think your Lordships must all agree, that some form of committee or tribunal must be set up, independently, I hope, of the Government, which should review these regulations in a much more thorough fashion than, in my judgment, has been done in this instance, and should recommend to both Houses of Parliament when they should be revoked or allowed to expire.
  My Lords, I rose really to speak to the Amendment standing in my name. As your Lordships will have appreciated, that Amendment is designed to ensure that there is some Parliamentary control over this question of revocation. If your Lordships will turn again to the White Paper, you will see that before December 10 the Government propose to revoke some eight or nine of the Defence (General) Regulations without this House or the other place having an opportunity to give judgment upon them. The purpose of my Amendment, therefore, was to draw attention to the fact that at present there is no opportunity for either House to agree affirmatively to the revocation of these various regulations. It is open for the Government or a Minister, even during a Recess, to revoke a regulation to which your Lordships may attach great
  506
  importance, and there is no opportunity for either House by Affirmative Resolution to approve the revocation.
  As the whole of this matter is extremely complicated, I hoped that after over a year, and having regard to what the Lord Chancellor said over twelve months ago about the review which was to take place, these matters might have been presented to your Lordships in a rather better and more easily understood form. I do not know whether your Lordships have appreciated the fact that some of these regulations are apparently going to be revoked or allowed to expire, some are going tobe kept in force, some are to be retained but revoked by some later measure, in my submission quite unnecessarily and arbitrarily, and some are to be revoked or to be allowed to expire and then to be re-enacted. It is difficult enough for members of yourLordships'House, but it must be quite impossible for the ordinary British citizen to appreciate either what the position is or what it is likely to be when the Motions which the noble and learned Lord is inviting us to deal with to-day, or after the Committee stage of the Bill, come into operation. I express the hope that, certainly within the next year, the Government will have seen to the setting up of some body satisfactory to your Lordships' House and to another place, which will go through all these regulations and, as a result, one hopes, bring before this House some Bill or Motion doing away altogether with the great majority of these regulations. My Lords, at this late stage, as I have made my point and noble Lords have expressed their views upon the setting up of some body to consider all these matters, it may be for the convenience of the House if I do not move my Amendment. It has been fully ventilated and, in the circumstances, I do not propose to move it.
  5.56 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords,my first duty is surely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his courteous and even generous observation upon the speech with which I opened this debate—indeed, I give my thanks to other noble Lords also. It is typical of the attitude adoptedby this House towards any spokesman who, however inadequately, at least tries to advise the House upon the matters before him. My

  507
  next task is this. While the noble Marquess the Leader of the House was addressing your Lordships, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was addressing another place. I have just heard and am able to tell your Lordships what the noble Marquess was not able to tell you then. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary there said that he could assure the House that the Government are willing that an inquiry should be held into the procedures for exercising Parliamentary control over delegated legislation, and that they would be ready forthwith to discuss through the usual channels the precise form and scope of such inquiry. I do not know whether I use his exact words. I must not be taken as quoting him, but that, I think, is the purport of what he told the other place. That will absolve me from any necessity to re-embark on what indeed would be for me a dreadful labour—namely, the question of the Donoughmore Committee Report. It is true that Lord Schuster, Lord Waverley and I are the only three survivors of that Committee. Lord Schuster and I happen to have been two of the drafting sub-committee, and therefore you may say, I suppose, "Would that my enemy should write a book." I took a large part in the writing of that Report, and the views which were then expressed are, I am bound to say, the views that I entertain still, subject, of course, to such changes as changed circumstances demand. I think, in the circumstances, that I need not embark upon that very wide and interesting topic which has formed a large part of the discussion in your Lordships' House to-day.
  I will do what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said I should do—namely, try to answer some of the detailed points raised in the course of this afternoon's debate. As I told the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, I am afraid I have not yet been able to get the necessary information upon the subject of the domestic pig; but he will be communicated with, and any other noble Lord who is interested in that topic will also be able to obtain that information. I think I have anticipated what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was going to say upon Regulation 68CA, which deals with the requisitioning of houses. I hope that he will find it satisfactory when he con-
  508
  siders the terms of the Act, for which I think he was in a large way responsible.
  Then with regard to the dogs. That is, undoubtedly, rather a small point. It has been suggested, I hope not too frivolously, that the reason why that regulation has been abandoned is that it was discovered that a notice was really ineffective, since dogs could not read. That may or may not be so. With regard to the valuable suggestion made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the regulations should be printed and kept up to date, it has already been resolved that as soon as this debate is over, and these transactions are finished, and the Bill which I am about to introduce has been passed, the regulations will be reprinted and brought up to date. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also made the point (though this, perhaps, falls rather within the area of the discussion upon delegated legislation) that the regulationsor orders should be clear to the ordinary citizen, and he adduced as an example of lack of clarity the order relating to chocolates. I think that that argument must not be pressed too far. Most of these orders, or at least many of them, are directed only to the particular trade which is perfectly familiar with the subject. I do not think any dealer in chocolates to whom that order is addressed, and who alone is concerned with it, would have any difficulty in understanding its purport and its meaning.
  LORD SILKIN: Is not the purchaser of chocolates somewhat interested?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not believe that there is any member of this House, however addicted to the purchase and consumption of chocolates he may be, who bothers himself about that order in the very least—but I may be wrong. The noble Lord also commented upon the immense outflow of regulations and orders made under them. Of course, that is a perfectly valid criticism; but, as I ventured to point out when introducing this Motion, so long as present circumstances continue, particularly the difficulty about the investment programme, rationing, price control and rearmament, there exists an abnormal condition, and its abnormality probably demands that there should be a large flow of orders. I hope they may stop. I hope, indeed, that within measurable time there may be a further

  509
  substantial reduction. But it would be unwise to prophesy and foolish to make any promises.
  The noble Lord who spoke last was amused at hearing the speech with which I introduced this Motion, having heard, as he said, such different speeches from those who were formerly members of the Opposition. He may be amused about me. I was a little amused, too, as I sat here listening to those who were responsible for making these orders protesting against their being retained. It is a little puzzling, but we will be amused together, the noble Lord and I, on this subject. It is strictly germane to that that a criticism was made—and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, took apart in this—that I appeared to be satisfied with the reduction of some 4,700, from something over 16,000 in the number of officers who have a right of entry and inspection. He thought that that was not much to be proud of in a year. I regard that as a very good reduction. Again without giving any urdertaking—for clearly it could not be given—nor making any promises, I would point out that greater reduction may be looked for if things go reasonably well with noble Lords who sit on theGovernment Benches. There should be a very substantial measure of reduction of the number of such persons in the course of four years. But, as everyone knows, whatever happens there must be a number of inspectors. This total includes factory inspectors, who must have a right of entry upon premises. I share with the noble Viscount the hope that the number of these people may be reduced, and speedily reduced; but it will never be reduced to nothing, whatever may happen.
  The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made what, no doubt, is a valid point, that, under the Act, the Executive have power to revoke a regulation without bringing it to the notice of Parliament The short answer to that is that it is done under the Statute, and if objection was to be made to that it should have been made when the Statute was passed by the Government of which, I think, the noble Lord was a member. The Statute expressly provides that the regulation may be made, or may be revoked, with no suggestion in it that before revocation the matter should he brought again before Parliament. I think it is a valid point
  510
  in a sense, because it may be that revocation ought in some cases to be brought to the notice of Parliament. But the Act does not so provide, and I think that is the complete answer I must make to the noble Lord. To employ the noble Lord's own words, the Act itself says that a regulation may be enacted by the ipse dixit of the Government Departments which have made it, but there is no provision whatever, either for Prayer to annul therevocation or for anything of that kind. It must, I suggest, be left to the Government of the day, if they think fit, to revoke those regulations which, by their very nature, are designed to he merely temporary regulations to meet an emergency—though we all know, alas! that the emergency has continued for very much longer than we thought it would. That is the nature of the regulation and its purpose. It is surely not improper that the Executive authority should have power, when the emergency has ceased, to revoke that emergency regulation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Winster, was good enough to anticipate what it might have fallen to my lot to say on the question of seamen's identity cards. This is rather an important question, and it has been made the subject of a provision in the Bill which I am about to introduce. It is satisfactory to know from Lord Winster, who is a high authority on this matter, that it meets with the approbation of the seafaring community. Another matter referred to by one of your Lordships was the regulation dealing with the direction of labour. That is a very important regulation. It is being, not indeed abolished or largely abolished, but substantially narrowed by the partial revocation which I referred to in the course of my opening speech. Would that it could be got rid of altogether! But the time is not yet. As I said, however, we have narrowed it. As I told your Lordships a moment or two ago, the greater part of the debate has been directed to the question of delegated legislation generally, and I hope that I have dealt with all the detailed natters which were raised by many of your Lordships. Therefore, I propose now to put the Motion to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
6.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given notice of his intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedulehereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I said in opening this debate earlier this afternoon, I do not propose to move this Motion to-day. It will stand over until a further occasion. The same remarks apply also to the next Motion which is printed on the Order Paper.

PATENTS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as set out on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section forty-nine of the Patents Act, 1949, praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 12th instant, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 4th November.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

REGISTERED DESIGNS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as set out on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subparagraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act, 1949, praying that the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order. 1952, reported from the Special
512
Orders Committee on the 12th instant be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 4th November.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with white Staves.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is the Bill which carries out the purpose which I indicated in opening this debate. It gives permanence to a number of regulations which time has shown ought to be embodied in our permanent law. The position is rather a curious one, it seems to me. In regard to a Bill of this kind it is impossible to say that there is any principle pervading the whole Bill, as normally is the subject of a Second Reading Debate. It is a congeries of provisions wholly different one from the other, and every one has a principle of its own. The only common factor which theyall have is that, whereas they have been temporary, it is now desired to make them permanent.
That being so, I am rather in a difficulty about how I should deal with the matter. It is clear that when this Bill goes into Committee in this House it would be proper for the Committee to deal with any Amendment which purported either to vary or to delete any of the several provisions. In these circumstances, your Lordships may not think it desirable, it having been stated that these are temporary regulations which are now to be made permanent, that we should now go into any details as to the several provisions contained in the several clauses. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, welcomes that suggestion. I do not want in any way to shirk any duty or obligation or to be discourteous to the House. But if there were any indication that that would be a course convenient to your Lordships, I would be content to move the Second Reading formally now, leaving it to your Lordships to raise any

513
point on the Committee stage. I do not know whether that course commends itself to your Lordships on both sides of the House. If that is so, I will move simply that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not rise to debate the matter on Second Reading, because I think the Bill has been largely covered by the debate which we have already had. But I want to raise a question of procedure. The noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack has not moved two of his Motions to-day because of discussions taking place in another place. It seems to me that the course adopted by the noble and learned Lord respecting his Motions might well be followed with the Bill—namely, that the Committee stage should be delayed in order to give an opportunity of seeing what is done in another place, and also to provide an opening by which, through the usual channels or otherwise, we can enter into discussions about certain of the Amendments that will ensue. We shall take an interest in the Committee stage. We do poi propose to be obstructive, but it may be that there will be a number of Amendments of some importance, and therefore we should like a little more time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that would be an admirable plan. I do not suppose anyone would suggest that we should take the Com-
514
mittee stage of this Bill at a very early date. I think it would be better taken on the same date as the remainder of the Addresses which have not been voted on. That would give your Lordships an opportunity of studying what has been said in another place. That, it seems to me, would be the best plan, if convenient to your Lordships.
THE LORD CHEANCELLOR: I understand that that date will be December 2. May I add to what the noble Marquess has said, although I have not his authority for it, that this is a matter in which we shall be glad to have the assistance and consultation of the noble Lords on the other side of the House?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that this is a Bill which originates in this House, and therefore it will not be discussed in another place until it has been passed in this House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right but, even so, I think it would be convenient to your Lordships if an opportunity of studying the matter were provided. If the Bill were taken on the same day as the remaining Addresses, I imagine that it would probably be convenient for everybody.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past six o'clock