CRISIS POWERS BILL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22406, 13 August 1947, Page 5

CRISIS POWERS BILL

BEDEVILLED BY POLITICS CHANCELLOR ADMITS DISLIKE SHARP CRITICISM IN LORDS (N.Z.P.A.—-Reuter— Copyright.) (11.35 a.m.) LONDON, August 12. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, in moving the second reading of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill in the House of Lords today, said: “I believe the 1945 Act gives us all the powers we want. This bill does not add to those powers, but I am bound to tell you there is a different school of thought. Those whose advice I habitually accept on these matters take a different view.”

Lord Jowitt said the bill had been bedevilled by politics. Debate had become “such a Donnybrook” that the simple matter of resolving some legal doubts had been treated as one of tremendous political importance.

He did not pretend lie liked the bill. He entirely disliked totalitarianism, but he was determined that the country should face its great difficulties with vigour and determination. Lord Jowitt added that the justification for the Government having the powers granted in the bill was that they would never be exercised. With the powers in the background, it would be possible to arrange things by common agreement.

Lord Llewellin said it was a sorry confession when the Government said it had no preconceived notion how to deal with the crisis. It had taken the Government two years to realise that its powers were insufficient to deal with matters it should have been dealing with during those years. This showed complete incompetence.

The Supplies and Services Bill, granting the Government wide powers to deal with the economic crisis, was finally passed by the House of Commons late this morning by 178 votes to 63. The sitting lasted over 18 hours. Mr. P. G. Roberts (Con.) moved a new clause providing that nothing in the Act should allow of regulations or orders being made for the purpose of nationalising the iron and steel industry or any part of it. The steel industry was fundamental to the country’s reconstruction and recovery. he said. There were powers that the Government could take to nationalise the industry, but this was neither the time nor the way to do it. He asked what were the Government’s intentions. Mr. Herbert Morrison, replying, said that the Government • already had powers over a wide field of industry and, if it was expedient and desirable in the public interest to use any of those powers in relation to particular undertakings in the iron and steel industry, they would use them. Minister Refuses Promises Mr. Morrison said that he was not going to make any promise on the point. The Opposition’s argument was preposterous and childish. Their view was that fresh regulations ought not to be used for the socialisation of whole industries. Therefore, he gave an assurance that the regulations would not be so used, but only in the national interest and for national needs. Mr. Roberts withdrew his amendment. Sir Hartley Shawcross, in moving the third reading, said that, legally, the bill did not greatly increase the Government’s already extensive powers but would remove doubt about the extent to which those powers could be used for purposes connected with the present economic emergency. The Opposition members who suggested that the bill involved some attack on freedom and liberty would find in their constituencies (hey were mistaken. The Government’s whole policy in this bill was to enable it to take measures to enable the ordinary man and woman to live a fuller life and achieve greater dignity. State’s Needs Paramount The Government recognised that, great as individual liberty might be, high as personal freedom might be rated, the life, liberty and very exist-

ence of the community were something greater still. That was why the Government needed to take the powers the bill provided.

Sir Hartley Shawcross asked the House to let the bill go forward as a badge of determination of all Britons to neglect no means —even if it involved discomfort, interference with property and even with liberty itself—to ensure the community's whole power and strength was devoted to the battle which was not only for the country s economic life, but for the true liberty of the British people. The Government accepted an amendment, moved by Mr. Clement Davies, that nothing in the Act should be held to authorise the suppression or suspension of any newspaper, periodical, book or other publication. An amendment by Lieut.-Colonel F. Byers, provided that any order or regulation under the Act for the compulsory direction of labour should be laid before both Houses as soon as may be after it was made. Sir Hartley Shawcross. rejecting the amendment, said it would mean having a Parliamentary debate before an indidivdual direction was given to an individual “spiv” to engage in useful work. He said the Government already possessed powers for the direction of labour. It did not contemplate any widespread or general use of those powers, but at the present moment—the most serious period of the country’s history—did not seem an appropriate time for restricting their use. Attack on Attorney-General

Captain A. R. Blackburn said the Attorney-General was behaving in totalitarian fashion, and was utterly unworthy of holding his position. He would be condemned on that issue within a fortnight by decent thinking people in the Labour Party. Captain Blackburn added that by daring to suggest that power should be exercised other than by this Parliament, the Attorney-General betrayed the legal profession to which he belonged. The amendment was defeated by 207 votes to 86.