PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL.

HL Deb 17 May 1928 vol 71 cc91-137

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Preamble:

Whereas it is expedient to consolidate the enactments relating to petroleum and to petroleum-spirit, and it is desirable that, before the said enactments are consolidated, certain amendments should be made therein:

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out the Preamble. The noble Lord said: This is a purely formal matter and I understand that the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Government will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 1 to 5, leave out the Preamble.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am quite ready to accept this Amendment of the noble Lord who is a great authority on this matter. It is not proposed to make any great alteration but the Bill is brought in with a view to consolidation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1:

Amendment of 34 & 35 Vict. c. 105. s. 2.

1. For the definitions of the terms "harbour" and "harbour authority" contained in section two of the Petroleum Act, 1871, there shall be substituted the following definitions:—

The term "dock" includes any pier, jetty or other place in or at which ships do or can ship or unship goods or passengers.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in the definition of "dock," to leave out "do or." The noble Lord said: This is merely a verbal alteration.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, leave out ("do or").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Repeal and re-enactment with amendments of 59 & 60 Vict. c. 36. s. 5.

3. Section five of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896 (which empowers a Secretary of State to make regulations as to the keeping and use of petroleum or of any other inflammable liquid or fuel for the purpose of light locomotives), shall cease to have effect and the following provisions shall have effect in lieu thereof:— (2) In this section the expression 'motor vehicles' includes all mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out the substituted subsection (2). The noble Lord said: There are a great many definitions scattered throughout the Bill and it is proposed at a later stage to move a consolidating Amendment to get all the definitions into one clause. I therefore propose to leave out subsection (2).

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 41 to 43, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Desborough).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My next Amendment makes a purely verbal alteration.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, leave out ("contravention") and insert ("offence").—(Lord Desborough,).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Regulations as to classes of petroleum likely to be dangerous or injurious to health]:

LORD DESBOROUGH

I have a drafting Amendment to this clause which covers the same point as that to which your Lordships have just agreed.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 27, leave out ("contravention") and insert ("offence").—(Lord Desborough).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

By-laws as to petroleum filling stations.

5.—(1) For the purpose of preserving the amenities of any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest for the enjoyment of the public, the council of any county or borough may make by-laws—

1. (a) regulating the design and appearance of petroleum filling stations; or
94
2. (b) prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations

in any part of their area to which the by-laws apply:

Provided that—

1. (i) nothing in any by-laws made for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section shall prevent the use in any place to which the by-laws apply of any pump or other apparatus approved for use in such places by the Secretary of State, and in making any by-laws for the said purposes a council shall make provision for exempting any petroleum filling station established at the time of the making of the by-laws from any restrictions requiring structural alterations for such period not being less than two years from that time as they may think fit; and
2. (ii) in making any by-laws for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section a council shall have regard to the need for reasonable facilities for the supply of petroleum in or near the part of their area to which the by-laws apply.

(2) Any part of the area of a council to which by-laws or a draft of any by-laws made under this section apply shall be distinctly marked and shown on plans to be signed by and deposited with the clerk of the council making the by-laws, and the said plans shall be at all reasonable times thereafter open for the inspection of the public without charge.

(4) The Secretary of State may confirm any by-laws submitted to him under this section, with or without any modifications, and any by-laws so confirmed by the Secretary of State shall be published by the council by whom the by-laws were made in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct.

(7) In this Act the expression "petroleum filling station" means any premises or place used or intended to be used by way of trade or for purposes of gain for the supply of petroleum for motor vehicles, and includes any building, advertisement, pump, or other apparatus in or used in connection with any such premises; and the expression "amenities," in relation to any place, includes any view of or from that place.

(8) Any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as part of their expenses for general county purposes.

LORD CHARNWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest for the enjoyment of the public" and to insert "their area." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is much desired by the Association of Municipal Corporations which has considered this matter very carefully. If it were carried the clause in question would read:— For the purpose of preserving the amenities of their area, the council of any county or borough may make by-laws … and so on. It is agreed, I suppose, that these petroleum stations, though I dare say that they commend themselves to the artistic tastes of a certain artistic section of the public, are an eyesore in the eyes of the ordinary man, and the general purpose of this clause is to give the councils of counties or boroughs power to protect their inhabitants against this particular annoyance. What is the necessity of limiting that power? Why should they not have an unrestricted power, subject, of course, to the consent to which other by-laws are subjected, of preserving the amenities of their area in this way?

Your Lordships will observe the effect of the qualifying words in the clause as it stands. It says that:— For the purpose of preserving the amenities of any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest"— the councils may make by-laws. Consider the way in which this will operate. A county council makes a by-law by which it will try as far as it can to regulate the design or situation of these filling stations. A case occurs under that by-law in which a person is prosecuted. He will say in his defence: "Oh, but the place where my petrol station is situated was not rural, it had no beauty and it had no historic interest before I placed my filling station there," and unless the Bench are prepared to decide that the place was beautiful or interesting or rural, they will have to say that the by-law does not apply to this case and that no offence has been committed. That, as I understand it, is the effect of the Bill as it stands. I do not see the need of that particular restriction. Surely you must give these local authorities power to make by-laws of which the application is plain and indisputable, and it seems to be almost nonsensical to give them powers under which a question will arise, to be decided in the first place by the unfortunate Home Office and afterwards by unfortunate Benches of Justices, whether or not a place was beautiful or interesting before the petrol station was put there. I will only say in conclusion that experience shows that local authorities are not in the least inclined to make a rash use of powers such as this clause would give them, nor is the Home Office uncritical in the consideration given to by-laws of this kind. I feel, therefore, that it is unnecessary to tie the hands of local authorities very closely, and the restriction put upon them by the words that I desire to omit seems to be unnecessary and, indeed, almost unworkable and nonsensical.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 35 and 36, leave out ("any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest for the enjoyment of the public") and insert ("their area").—(Lord Charnwood.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to preserve the rights of movers of later Amendments, I shall put to your Lordships the question that the word "any" stand part of the clause.

EARL BUXTON

Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to say a word op this Amendment. I quite appreciate the object that my noble friend has in view. I think that we all have the same object in view—namely, to get rid of the offensiveness of these petrol stations and to do all we can to preserve the amenities of the countryside and elsewhere—but I am afraid that if this Amendment is accepted it will have a certain disadvantage. With the Bill as it stands, to my mind the most important words of this clause are the very words which the noble Lord proposes to omit, and which I hoped might be extended by the acceptance, which I fully anticipate, of an Amendment to be moved by my noble friend beside me (Lord Buckmaster) and other Amendments making the area clearer and larger. I think that if those Amendments were accepted the Amendment now before us would, on the whole, be disadvantageous. It is a very important thing that Parliament should definitely say in so many words that it is desired that the amenities of rural scenery and places of beauty and historic interest, and also the enjoyment of the public, should be preserved. I think it is a great advantage, from the point of view of public opinion and also to direct the local authorities, to have it on record that Parliament has given a plain direction as to what it desires. In the circumstances I hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment, which it seems to me would be going back on the real proposals of the Bill and would not be to the advantage, but to the disadvantage, of the preservation of these amenities.

LORD DESBOROUGH

This Amend merit raises a very wide question, and really goes very much further than the Amendments which are coming afterwards. I am much obliged to my noble friend who has just sat down. Really this Amendment would alter the whole character of the Bill. The Bill is not meant to apply to towns, but to these rural spots and places or beauty and of historical interest in the country, and is intended to preserve what remains of our rural scenery. I do not know that it is necessary to urge at the present time the many objections to including the whole county council and borough council areas within the purview of the Bill. They will come up later on subsequent Amendments. With regard to the question of including the whole area of local government in England within this Bill, the Government could not think of accepting an Amendment of that nature.

LORD CHARNWOOD

I could not think of pressing my Amendment after what I have just heard from the two last speakers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "rural." The noble Lord said: The Amendment of the noble Lord having been rejected, the proposal which I have to put forward is one which I am hopeful may be accepted. It is of a very modest nature, and I venture to think that it does come within what the noble Lord called the scope of the Bill. Personally I am rather regretful that the Government have not seen their way to accept the previous Amendment, which would have made it unnecessary to move these subsequent Amendments. However, that not having happened, I would like to move the omission of the word "rural" before "scenery," because there might be a considerable amount of argument as to whether the scenery, which it was desired to protect, was rural or not.

I desire to move later on—perhaps it world be convenient to take them to- gether in my speech—an Amendment to insert, after "historic interest," the words "or of any residential district." Under the Bill as it now stands, it seems to me, there would be no application to a place like Chislehurst, or even Wimbledon, both residential districts, the beauties of which it is manifestly very desirable to preserve, so that, strictly speaking, they could not be brought within the ambit of the clause as it now reads. It might well be argued that there was no rural scenery, or place of beauty, or historic interest within the meaning of this clause. Surely it ought to apply to residential districts, because otherwise the purpose of the clause would be largely lost. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will look with rather more favour upon my Amendment than he did upon the last. That would still leave the clause excluding the towns, which he seems so desirous to do. I think, however, it is very desirable that the clause should be enlarged, at any rate, to the extent that I propose.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, leave out ("rural").—(Lord Arnold.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, if the noble Lord's Amendment be confined to the first Notice on the Paper I see no reason why it should not be accepted, but if he proposes to link on to that another Amendment which comes after mine, and which introduces words different from those which in my judgment are most fitting, then I shall have a good deal to say. I think the better plan would be to pursue the ordinary course, and take each Amendment in the order in which it comes, and not attempt to short-circuit an Amendment on the Paper while introducing one behind it. I see no reason why the word "rural" should not be omitted. There is beautiful scenery which may not be strictly described as rural.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The Government are averse from accepting the Amendment, because, as I have just said, the whole object of the Bill is to preserve what remains to us of our rural scenery, and it is not easy, to my mind, to say what particular spot is not covered by this Bill. The Bill refers to "rural scenery or place of beauty, or historic interest," and in the opinion of the Government that definition is quite wide enough. They would very much prefer to retain the word "rural," as that was the primary object of introducing the clause in the Bill, owing to representation made in another place as to the destruction of our rural scenery. I think other scenery and places of beauty and historic interest are in the Bill, too, and the Government very much prefer to retain the word "rural," which also appears in the Regulation of Advertisements Bill, a measure which is run on very similar lines. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment to leave out the word "rural."

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I hope, before a final decision is come to by the Government, that, this matter may be reconsidered prior to the later stages of the Bill. I supported the Government just now tacitly after what Lord Desborough said about the Amendment of Lord Charnwood, but here we set out quite properly that "rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest for the enjoyment of the public," shall be protected from these eyesores. Everybody applauds that, I am sure. Why should not the same considerations apply cæteris paribus to urban places of beauty or urban places of historic interest? I do not think they do apply now.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Oh, yes, "Rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest," are the words in the Bill.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Let us be quite clear. Lord Arnold has moved to leave out the word "rural," because he considers that the Bill only applies to rural areas. By leaving out that word, he makes the clause apply to all areas. I should like the opinion of persons learned in the law. The Lord Chancellor can no doubt tell us if, under this Bill, there is any control over the erection of these petrol stations outside the Tower of London, in Parliament Square, or in the courtyards approaching Windsor Castle. Those are three urban places, where the erection of these horrors would be of the utmost offence. If the Bill gives power to the local authorities to forbid such erections, I am satisfied, but I want to know whether the retention of the word "rural" prevents the clause from applying to such places.

EARL RUSSELL

I am afraid that the three instances which the noble Earl has given will hardly help the Amendment, because I should be disposed to say that clearly they are governed by this disjunctive phrase, places of "historic interest"; but I should be glad none the less to support the Amendment of Lord Arnold and to hope that it might receive a more favourable consideration, because I think there is something still omitted even with those words in the clause. You may have in a town a beautifully laid-out park or something of that sort over which there is a sort of vista, and you do not want to have one of these red or green petrol stations erected just where it spoils the view of that particular part of the town.

LORD DESBOROUGH

That is a place of beauty.

EARL RUSSELL

That is what I was wondering. It is an extraordinarily vague phrase and must depend on the mind of the beholder whose view would differ with the person who sees it. There are some people who say that Cubist pictures are things of beauty and others who say the exact opposite, but this clearly is scenery and it is a thing which is worth preserving from defilement, and in spite of the Government's nervousness about increasing the ambit of this Bill I do hope for a little more favourable consideration of this Amendment.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I should like to ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill what he suggests the Bill would do as regards a situation such as this. We all of us know Boar's Hill, outside Oxford, and the exquisite view there is from that hill. Supposing you put up a petrol pump just at the corner, you would not interfere with one of the beauties of Oxford per se, or with any rural beauty necessarily. What you would do would be to destroy the scenery—not the rural scenery, but the scenery which includes the exquisite beauty of the towers and spires of Oxford. Take another example. Let us take Salisbury. You have only to get a little way outside Salisbury—not into a rural area—and you can look down on Salisbury Cathedral. Are you to have your view interrupted and all your pleasure utterly destroyed by the presence of three or four great green or yellow petrol pumps, standing at the very spot where you want to stand to look at this view—which is probably the most convenient place? No rural scenery is involved in either of those cases, nor is the place a place of historic interest—because that is not what you are stopping. You are stopping the enjoyment of the view of the scenery, though you do not interfere with any place of historic interest or any place of beauty. It is the place from which you get your view, it is the scenery that is interfered with, and to limit this to "rural scenery," it appears to me, is to destroy half the efficacy of the Bill.

LORD ARNOLD

I very much hope that the Government will, at any rate, undertake to consider this point between now and the next stage of the Bill. I think sufficient has been said from various quarters of the House to make that a reasonable request. With great respect to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, I would venture to question whether be is quite correct in his description of the intended operation of the Bill. He now informs us that the Bill is only intended to apply to rural areas. I have just looked through his speech on the Second Reading, and I see no such limitation there. I have not had the opportunity since he spoke of refreshing my memory, but I am under the impression that when this matter was first brought forward in another place there was no such limitation.

Moreover, the noble Lord himself has a major Amendment in regard to the operation of this Bill in urban districts. If that is so, it is not necessarily incompatible with keeping "rural" in, but it certainly does not seem very easy to reconcile that with the view that the Bill is only intended to apply to rural areas. Moreover, when it was suggested, as it has been, that urban districts should have power to make their own Regulations, the defence was never put up by the Government, that it was only to apply to rural areas. In view of these circumstances and of the admitted difficulty of interpretation, if this word remains in, I would beg the noble Lord to undertake to consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill. He is not necessarily committing himself to anything by doing that.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, I am not at present very much impressed by the constructional point with regard to this word "rural" in the clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in an absence which was necessary on my part from the House, raised, I understand, the question of Boar's Hill, and of a line of these execrable fountains placed in that situation, and inquired whether that would be a violation of rural beauty. Well, if I were sitting with my noble and learned friend judically I think he and I would overcome this difficulty. But it is a very reasonable request which Lord Arnold has made to reconsider this matter before the Report stage in the light of the arguments which have been addressed to the House, and I very readily give the assurance that we will do so.

LORD ARNOLD

I thank the noble and learned Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (1), after "scenery" to insert "town, village." The noble and learned Lord said: I think the examination of this clause has shown that either the words I suggest or some equivalent words are essential. As the clause stands there is a strict limit placed on the power to make by-laws, and they are confined either to rural scenery, to places of beauty, or to places of historic interest. The places I have in mind do not answer any one of those three descriptions. The first place I think of is just an ordinary English village, which is not a place necessarily of historic interest within the meaning of this clause, which certainly is not rural scenery, and about which people would find it difficult to agree upon whether or not it is a place of beauty. You would never get the Courts to determine that. You ought to make it quite plain that our villages are not to be defiled by the presence of petrol pumps if the local authority thinks they are an eyesore and a nuisance. The same is true of small local towns. Why should you have them put up in Marlborough? The danger is that this clause would only be applicable to just those places where you do not find many of these petrol pumps. It is at the entrance of villages and in village streets where they are mostly to be found, and those are the places we most desire to protect. If you desire that protection to be given the words which I propose in my Amendment should be inserted.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, after ("scenery") insert ("town, village").—(Lord Buckmaster.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

We all sympathise with my noble and learned friend in the fight he is making for these beautiful places. I should have, on behalf of the Government, no objection to the insertion of the word "village," but I am afraid I cannot go as far as he would like to go with regard to towns. In another place there was a great deal of difficulty over this clause altogether. Towns are now, to a large extent, masses of unsightly buildings, and if in any of these towns there were powers to remove pumps there would be a very great difficulty in carrying out the Regulations. The Home Secretary also, in framing the by-laws, would have his difficulties enormously increased if the word "town" was inserted in what was originally intended to be a clause to preserve our rural scenery, following the lines of the Act which was passed for the regulation of advertisements. Though with regard to this Amendment I am quite willing, as instructed, to accept the word "village," I am afraid I cannot accept the word "town."

EARL BEAUCHAMP

We have every reason to be most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way with regard to "village" and we are very heartily thankful to him for accepting that word. May I, however, add a few words in favour of the insertion of "town." We are all of us agreed that nothing is more delightful and that few things attract visitors to this country more than the prospect of motoring through our villages and our larger towns and seeing the English countryside. The noble Lord has been good enough to agree that villages would be spoilt if these pumps were put up. Is it not obvious also that there are a large number of towns which will equally be spoilt if these pumps are put up? I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord just now, that many of our towns are a jumble of buildings, many of which are ugly. But are there not also a number of towns which are very charming in that very characteristic—that they have been built in the course of centuries and have wide open streets? I can think at once of three or four villages and there is not one of your Lordships whose memory will not supply him with a number of other towns of the same kind. Take, for instance, Dorchester, Wallington and New-market. All those are towns, technically speaking, with wide open streets, yet all of them, I think, would be largely spoilt by the putting up of this kind of pump and those places do not at present conic under the terms of this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord who speaks for the Government will not think me ungrateful if I still venture to urge him to include the word "town," so that these other places of equal interest and beauty might be included in the Bill.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I think that my noble friend has very fairly met the case that has been made. It is a great concession that "village" should be included, and I am bound to say that I think it is an entirely reasonable concession and I am glad that it has been made. As for "town," I would ask the House, while reserving the opportunity of repeating this proposal at a later stage if they think proper, not to insist upon it now having regard to the very reasonable attitude of the Home Office. I am not at all satisfied that a town may not be a place of beauty. My noble friend Lord Beauchamp says that many tourists like coming to this country and motoring through our large cities. There are not many through which I greatly enjoy motoring in existing circumstances. But supposing, for instance, that anybody were to set up a row of these pumps in the High Street of Oxford, my primâ facie impression—I have not considered it judicially—is that High Street, Oxford, is a place of beauty, and I should be very surprised if it were construed as not being a place of beauty by any dispassionate and competent Judge. However that may be, when the Home Secretary has been so very reasonable in this matter and seeing the great complications there would be in the matter of by-laws, I would venture to counsel your Lordships to take the concession of my noble friend. If any noble Lord cares, on further reflection, to put forward "town," I suggest it could be done at a later stage.

EARL RUSSELL

It is impossible, of course, not to be impressed with the argument of the noble Lord that Amendments of this character, if carried too far, might cause difficulty in another place. I think most of us would probably rather take what we can get than run the risk of losing this clause altogether. But I cannot help thinking that probably the view of the House generally would be, if we had a free hand, that anything that could be done to protect our beautiful towns should be done and that we should be only too ready to do it. But one must, of course, be guided in this by what the Government feel about the possibilities of legislation. If this House does give way to the argument advanced by the Government, I hope they will very seriously consider the matter before the next stage, because I am sure there is a strong feeling that anything we can do to protect any nice looking place from these horrible objects we should like to do.

LORD LAMINGTON

May I point out that in Clause 5 power is given to a council to make by-laws? Surely that would apply to a town.

LORD GAINFORD

I hope your Lordships' House will assert itself. It is a comparatively trifling thing to try to distinguish between a village and a town. If the thing is justified for a village, surely it is equally justified for a town. If I may take an illustration from the district in which I live, the City of Durham is a comparatively small town of great beauty with beautiful scenery from many points of view. There is another very small town close by called Barnard Castle, which has scenery of considerable beauty around it. There is also close by a village called Gainford, from which I take my name, and there is really no difference for purposes of this description between the village of Gainford and the town of Barnard Castle. It seems to me you are making a great difference between towns and villages which ought not to be considered. I think that both "town" and "village" ought to be accepted in connection with an Amendment of this kind.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, is always very disarming. On this occasion he has robbed me of the particular weapon I desired to use, in the last few words of his speech. He has used the case of petrol pumps in the High Street, Oxford, which I had thought of using. He says they will not get there because it is a place of beauty. But I beg you to understand that he or Lord Desborough has already admitted that you do not protect the villages merely because they are places of beauty. You have specifically to introduce them. The same thing is I rue of the town. But even if you could get, as I am sure you could, a common consensus of opinion that Oxford was a place of beauty, what are you going to do with your smaller towns which are places of great beauty to their inhabitants? You have to have a decision as to whether or not a place is a place of beauty. It would be almost impossible to determine. What you want to do is to give the local authority power to make these Regulations and to trust that they will exercise them to preserve what they on the spot regard as the beauty of the place. You cannot do that unless you include towns with villages. The general words of this clause do not include those places, and if "village" is to be included, as I am sure it would be the will of your Lordships that it should be, "town" ought to be included also.

There is one further question I should like to ask. Supposing by-laws were made with regard to a village, and the defence of an enterprising pump proprietor was that it, was not a village at all but a town, what are you going to say? It would be a most extraordinary difficulty. I do not know what the legal definition of a town is, and the only way you can give protection to such places is by including both. I cannot understand why it is that the Government have any difficulty in accepting "town." I still further wonder why it is that the noble and learned Earl who can see most things at a glance, should have required more than two days during which this Amendment has been on the Paper to make up his mind what to do. I think your Lordships ought to come to a conclusion upon it now.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I should like "town" and "village" to be put in for this reason. I do not quite know what a town is, but I certainly do not know what a village is. If they are both in we shall be sure that any aggregation of houses will pro tanto be protected. In regard to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, we are told that Clause 5 is only intended to apply to rural scenery. Why in those conditions are powers conferred on boroughs to make by-laws? I cannot help thinking that there must be some misapprehension. I repeat the question which I put before: Is there any power in this Bill as it stands to authorise a local authority to prevent a petrol pump being put up in High Street, Oxford, Parliament Square outside here, or in the great square outside the Castle of Conway? If I had an answer to that I should know how I stand with regard to towns and boroughs, but up to now I do not know what the intention of the Government is, or what the operation of the clause is going to be.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I do not think those of your Lordships who have spoken most recently have received in a very generous spirit what I conceive to be the conciliatory attitude of the Home Office. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, says that Lord Desborough admitted that villages were not, in the language of the clause, places of beauty. My noble friend admitted nothing of the kind. We are asked to pronounce a decision upon this matter now. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, very truly said, not ourselves being Home Secretaries we gave the view of the Home Office at the present stage of the Bill, and we have invited your Lordships to reserve this point until there has been a further opportunity of discussion. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, asked me whether or not I think the High Street, Oxford, is a place of beauty, if I understood his question aright. I hope I have already made it plain that, in my view, the High Street, Oxford, is a place of beauty. Although I am not as familiar with the Square in front of Conway Castle as the noble Earl, I am perfectly prepared to receive the assurance of any noble Lord of Welsh ancestry that this square is a place of beauty. But at any rate this matter shall be considered between now and the Report stage. I do not really think your Lordships, in the interests of this Bill and in the interests of the objects you all have at heart, would do well to press the Government at this stage.

EARL BUXTON

If you put in the word "village" that means that you are to apply this clause to the village and not to the town. We understand that in certain cases it may be held to apply to a town, but I do not think it would be wise to emphasise the fact that this Bill is only to apply to rural scenery and villages and that towns are specifically excluded. I hope in those circumstances that this House will take the matter into their own hands, and apply this to the smaller towns as well as to the villages. As my noble friend said, there is no distinction in regard to this matter between a large village and a small town. Nobody knows what is the distinction between a village and a town. What you want to do is to apply this Bill in places in which these pumps are likely to destroy the amenities and the beauty. It has been suggested that there would be difficulty in regard to this matter in the other House.

If it was a question of getting the Bill or losing it, we would rather have the Bill without the words than lose it with them. But I do not think there is any possible objection from the point of view of the Bill to this House expressing, as I hope it will by a considerable majority, its desire that both these words should be included and that, therefore, this Bill shall apply to larger areas than would be the case if the Bill is passed without these words. If it is found that there is real difficulty in the other House, if the other House does not appear to have the æsthetic taste of this House, the Government can be prepared to drop the Amendment, but I do not think it is right to say that if we pass this Amendment and put in these words such action is likely to jeopardise the Bill. I do not for a moment think that it will do so. If this House adopted this Amendment I believe the other House would accept it, but in any case we ought to exercise our own judgment and not be dictated to by the Home Office. If, on further consideration, there are found to be real objections to this Amendment, the Government can take it out on Report, but I hope that this House at this stage will exercise its independent judgment on the matter and show what its views are by putting in these words. To put in "village" alone would be much more dangerous than to leave it out.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I think that the noble Earl who has just spoken has not been very reasonable. He has the right that he claims of asserting the independence of this House on the Report stage. All that I have said was that this should be most carefully considered between now and then. It may be that the arguments that have been addressed to the House will be regarded as adequate and satisfactory by the Horne Office. I must say I think the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, is very unreasonable. When we have been persuaded to accept the Amendment to include a village he says, in effect: "I think that is so dangerous I would rather not have this Amendment at all." I had understood up to that moment that he was a supporter of the village Amendment. Apparently he is no supporter of the village unless he also gets the town included.

In relation to an Amendment, of that kind different considerations would arise. The noble Earl may be perfectly right. I have a great deal of sympathy with his broad views, but I rather think that London itself is a town in the legal definition. I believe that to be so, and you cannot possibly make an Amendment which would include a City like London in provisions which were conceived in relation to rural conditions. I would earnestly ask your Lordships not to vote at this stage upon the merits as to whether you wish the town to be included, but I would ask you most earnestly to rely upon the assurance of the Government that between now and the Report stage we will most carefully and not without sympathy consider the arguments that have been addressed to us. In my experience of your Lordships' House I have never known an appeal of this kind fail.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I hope my noble friend will insist upon going to a Division on this Amendment. After all this Amendment has been on the Paper for some days, and I do not see why it should be necessary to postpone until the Report stage further consideration of the matter. It is surely for your Lordships' House to vote as you think well upon the question whether to run the risk of all these smaller towns being spoilt by the petrol pumps or, on the other hand, of allowing His Majesty's Government to postpone the matter till Report. I am afraid I have too many recollections of old days when a very suitable way of getting out of a difficulty was to say that His Majesty's Government would consider the matter between Committee and Report. Then, somehow, we found that, generally speaking, when the Report stage came, the enthusiasm of the mover and supporters of the Amendment had evaporated and that an Amendment which the House bad been ready to vote for on the first occasion it was not prepared to support on the second occasion. It is one of those ways, favourable to His Majesty's Government, of postponing a decision on an Amendment. In those circumstances I hope your Lordships will insist upon adding the words "town" and "village" on this occasion, leaving it, if it is necessary, for His Majesty's Government to move such further Amendment as they think desirable upon a later occasion. I can assure them, if they find it necessary to move Amendments either on the Report stage or Third Reading, that they will, as they always do, receive most careful attention from your Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

After the assurance given by the noble Earl on the Front. Bench, I regret that my noble friend Earl Beauchamp should force some of us into the Lobby against an Amendment of which we naturally approve.

EARL RUSSELL

The speeches of the two noble Lords on the Front Benches do put me in a great difficulty. If it rested with me I should be only too glad to accede to the suggestion that has been made by the noble Earl, but, on the other hand, my difficulty is that if the noble Lord in charge of the Amendment really insists upon a. Division I cannot but vote with him. I do hope even at this hour that he will reconsider it, and leave the matter where it has been put by the Government—the acceptance of part of this Amendment with a promise of further consideration. As it is, it does put many of us in a great difficulty.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The last thing I desire to do in a matter of this kind is to run counter to the general feeling of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, stated that he would vote against the Amendment. It puts me in a state of embarrassment which it is not easy to escape. Of course, in the circum- stances I withdraw the Amendment, but I hope your Lordships will permit me to say that I do it with extreme regret. I think that it is for this House to express its opinion on the Bill. The Government have had full warning of that which they would be asked to make up their minds upon and I can see no just reason why that mind should not be expressed at the present time. Having regard, however, to what has passed it would be idle to pursue it.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord withdraw both words?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

May I suggest to the House that in spite of the doubts felt by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, the word "village" might be left in at this stage and the matter be further debated on Report stage?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord wish the word "village" to be put?

LORD BUCKMASTER

I think the word "village" standing by itself would create the most profound embarrassment. The Amendment was introduced for a definite purpose. If we once introduce the word "village" there would be the difficulty of saying what is a village and what is not.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

So be it. At this stage, then, leave out both "village" and "town," the understanding being that the discussion shall be resumed.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

May I make a suggestion? Perhaps the Government will consider before the Report stage whether or not all these lines should be left out. Leave the council of any county or borough free to make such by-laws as they think fit. These lines "for the purpose of preserving the amenities" and so on are really only a preamble. We do not like preambles to Acts of Parliament. They do not, as a rule, govern what is done by the Act and if you are giving power to the council of a county or borough to make by-laws, why not leave them entirely free to make such by-laws as they think fit? If they think the historic interest or beauty of either a town or village is interfered with, they will make such by-laws as they think fit.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

That also shall be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), after "interest," to insert "or of any residential district." The noble Lord said: I shall not require to say more than a few words on this Amendment. I ventured, with a view to saving time, as I thought, to make reference to it at an earlier stage of the Bill, because I was under the impression that the Government would without doubt accept it. However, that has not been done. But seeing that the Government have given an undertaking to consider, and I trust to consider very sympathetically, the Amendment just withdrawn by the noble and learned Lord, they will also surely agree to consider my Amendment between now and the Report stage. The Bill as it now stands could not apply, as I ventured to say earlier, to Chislehurst, for instance, and it could not apply, I think, to a place like Bournemouth. I think it is very desirable that places of that character should come within the ambit of the Bill.

I really think the noble Lord, in emphasising again and again that this measure was intended to apply only to rural areas, is under some misapprehension. As a matter of fact, when the Bill was first introduced in another place there was no clause of this kind in it. It was suggested on Second Reading that it would afford a suitable opportunity for doing something of the kind and the somewhat unusual course was taken later of moving an Instruction to the Committee that they should give powers to councils to make by-laws. I think I am correct in saying that it was never emphasised that the power was to be used only for rural purposes. If it is only to be used for rural purposes how is that consistent with the Amendment which the noble Lord himself is going to move shortly in regard to urban districts, and how is it consistent with the fact that power is given to boroughs to make bylaws? In view of all the circumstances I think there is a strong case for asking the Government, in its general consideration of the whole matter, to take into account this Amendment which—I need not elaborate the point—does not go as far as that of the noble and learned Lord who spoke last. I hope that they will consider it.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, after ("interest") insert ("or of any residential district").—(Lord Arnold)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I shall only be too happy to do that. When my noble friend says that I rather emphasise the rural part of the Bill, may I say that the matter arose from a desire to protect rural scenery. It was not in the Bill, but that is the way it arose.

LORD ARNOLD

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for saying that the matter will be considered. May I point out, because I think it is germane to the matter, that even if the original intention was to protect rural scenery there is no reason why the scope of the Bill should not be extended? There is nothing in the title of the Bill to make that impossible and I hope the Government will give a wider interpretation when the Bill comes up on Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BUCKMASTER had given Notice to move in subsection (1) (a), after "design," to insert "colour," and, after "appearance," to insert "or requiring the removal or concealment." The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name really includes two perfectly distinct and separate Amendments, and I think they had better be separately considered. The first one, I think, is one to which no one can object. It is to insert the word "colour" after the word "design." Of course, it is not really the design of these abominable things that so offends. It is their colour, and as the Bill stands unless colour is included in the word appearance—and I have grave doubt about that—there would be nothing to enable you to regulate colour, which is a very important matter. It is not a matter which needs any expatiation. I think the word "colour" is essential and I ask your Lordships to introduce it.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, after ("design") insert ("colour").—(Lord Buckmaster.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

The objection the Government have to this Amendment is that we consider "colour" is included in "appearance." We do not wish—I think my noble and learned friend, as a lawyer, will understand that—to limit the application of the word "appearance" by defining it by putting in any other words. The view of the Home Office is that colour is covered by the word "appearance."

LORD BUCKMASTER

It always astonishes me when I find Ministers in charge of a Bill, which they say they desire to make as effective as possible, using every form of argument to destroy its efficacy. If the word "colour" is included in the word "appearance" what harm is there in putting it in? I can only say as a person who has suffered a good deal in attempting to construe Acts of Parliament, that one of the great difficulties when you have a word capable of all sorts of meaning is to know that exact meaning to assign to it. When you attempt to assign an exact meaning you are met by the argument that if that is what Parliament meant, Parliament being assumed to be a sagacious body, why did it not say so? If you do mean this, I would ask you to say so and not be persuaded by the Home Office, who appear to take a different view about the matter, but for once to believe that there is great virtue in putting in the particular thing you mean in an Act of Parliament.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I am really a little astonished at my noble and learned friend. I do not intend to carry this controversy to a sharp conclusion. In other words the Government will not divide upon the first part of the Amendment. But when he suggests that the word "appearance" does not include colour, if that indeed it his suggestion, he puzzles me greatly. I have always understood the appearance of a woman depended largely upon considerations of colour. I have always understood that an apple depended upon considerations of colour. In fact, I think the appearance of ourselves is largely conditioned by considerations of colour; but I will not make the comparison more individual. Such being my view, obviously it would not be reasonable that I should ask the House to divide upon the inclusion of the word "colour." I will not, of course, bind myself not to attempt any finer distinction at a later stage, should one occur to minds more subtle than mine, but, so far as I and my noble friend are responsible for this Bill, we agree entirely to the addition of this word at this stage. The noble Lord did not, if I understand him aright, speak of the second part of his Amendment as it appears upon the Paper

LORD BUCKMASTER

I reserved that for a separate Motion.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

May I suggest that "design" is also covered by "appearance"? I cannot imagine what difference there is between design and appearance, and if you are going to put in "design" you might as well put in "colour." It would be better in my humble judgment to leave out both "design" and "colour," and then "appearance" would cover everything.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "appearance," to insert "or requiring the removal or concealment." The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very important Amendment, which I regard as essential to the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to enable you to take any steps to secure the removal or concealment of any of the pumping stations that already exist. We all know that they have invaded a very large number of our most beautiful areas and are a standing eyesore to everybody who passes by. Something ought to be done, not merely to prevent new ones being put up, but to secure that those which are there should be removed. I am bound to say that I think that the way in which we have acquiesced in this invasion of our rights reflects not very creditably on our inactivity. We have let this thing grow without taking any steps at all to stop it. At the last moment, when it has become absolutely unbearable, we have begun to interfere, and I think we ought now to take firm steps, remembering that this is the last opportunity. We shall not get any amending Bill for a very long time. It is now or never, and if you really do desire, as I do, to cleanse the country of these horrible sights, you must have power to remove and hide them, or we shall have them staying there for all time. The ones that got in first and, for all I know, are being erected now as fast as they can, will have some kind of vested right and we shall never be able to interfere with them.

It has always seemed to me an extraordinary thing that this Government that is so anxious to safeguard all our interests and our industries, which prevents the importation of silk stockings, which have no purposes except that of decoration, and of buttons which are both harmless and necessary, has none the less permitted the introduction of these pumps without any protest or any attempt to exclude them. Now that they are here, the only thing left for us is to take steps to see that they are put in a position where they do not offend us any more, and I ask your Lordships not to allow this Amendment to stand over but to decide now whether you desire that there should be power to remove and to hide these blots upon our landscape.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, after ("appearance") insert ("or requiring the removal or concealment").—(Lord Buckmaster.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

With regard to the second part of my noble friend's Amendment—namely, "concealment"—we consider that screens, or whatever may be necessary, are already permitted under the words "design and appearance," which also refer to buildings, but I am quite ready to consult the Parliamentary draftsman on this point and, if it is considered necessary, we can bring up other words to carry out the noble and learned Lord's intention. I understand that my noble friend also requires powers to remove these filling stations absolutely and without compensation, together with the buildings connected with them to which objection is taken and which also come under the Bill. This matter was raised and discussed in another place, and the position now is that the Home Office will be quite willing to assent to the proposition, but only on condition that where a man's livelihood is possibly taken away by the absolute removal of the means by which he got that livelihood there shall be compensation. Under my noble and learned friend's Amendment summary notice would be given to remove these buildings, and there is no word of compensation. If it is the opinion of the House that there should be power to order the removal of these pumping stations and the buildings connected therewith, the Government would at a later stage bring up a clause which would embody those views, but only on the understanding that compensation should have a part in the new clause.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The first thing that we want to know is the opinion of the House. How is that going to be expressed? I admit that I am baffled. The noble Lord comes down here and says that he will consult the Home Office. After all, he is speaking for the Government. This is not a Home Office Bill; it is a Government Bill, and I am never quite clear why we should consult the Home Office. If the Government really desired to consult the Home Office, why have they not done so? This Amendment has been here for two days. There has been abundant time for consultation and for the Government to make up their mind. Unless your Lordships are going to say whether you desire to have the power to remove and to hide these pumps included in the Bill now, what is the use of coming down here and discussing matters in Committee at all?

As for compensation, it is for the Government to put in what they desire. That is not for me. I do not know how it is going to be done, nor am I quite clear that the Amendment could be introduced in this House. It depends on what form it takes. The thing that I want to insist upon is that power should be given where necessary to remove these pumps or to hide them, and when the noble Lord talks about compensation it is for him to tell us how it is to be done. I want to see these pumps put where they will not offend, and I do not mind how it is done. The noble Lord seems to assume that these pumps are the property of the people who erect them. I very much doubt that. I should think that they belong, not to the people who erect them, but to quite other people. At any rate, there is no reason why these people should not be compensated if the Government think right, but I ask that my Amendment should be accepted, leaving the Government to introduce a further Amendment, if they think it necessary, consequential upon it. If we do not decide this matter now, what is the use of the Committee stage?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

The noble and learned Lord scolds us with very great severity, though I think that we have been in a very yielding mood all day. I am quite unconscious of deserving anything but eulogies from the noble Lord, and I receive nothing but shrill admonitions. My noble friend, I thought, made it quite clear that the Government—not particularly, the Home Office—is in principle—

LORD BUCKMASTER

He said the Home Office.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

If my noble friend said the Home Office, surely the noble and learned Lord has been long enough in this House to know that, when Departments are represented by one who is not their own special Minister, some degree of caution is necessary before an assumption of authority is made. But since the noble and learned Lord has asked in plain language whether my noble friend was expressing the opinion of the Government, I reply, I hope equally plainly, that he is expressing the opinion of the Government, and if there is any obscurity I will elucidate it. The Government are in principle in favour of the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord. The Government, however, see one objection to it, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this difficulty cannot be put right in this House. There must be some compensation. If a man has erected eight or nine of these hideous abominations in front of his house, permitted if not encouraged by the law, then he must be compensated for destroying them.

When the noble and learned Lord says that this Government have allowed these abominations to spring up, I am told that as to 50 per cent. of them that is a most wounding and unfounded charge. Half these pumps I am told are "Coalition" pumps. This matter has been very carefully considered by the appropriate Department, and it is proposed to accept this, in principle, and to introduce an Amendment in the sense of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, without committing ourselves entirely to his language. As at present advised we propose that compensation should be payable by the local authority requiring the removal of the filling station, but that is a matter which will be open to discussion on the Report stage. I cannot prevent the noble and learned Lord from dividing if he wishes to, but why he should divide in order to establish a proposition to which the spokesman of the Government has already assented, puzzles my ingenuity.

LORD BUCKMASTER

Do I understand that the Amendment is agreed to?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Certainly not. I have explained, and I think everyone but the noble and learned Lord understood what I said, that the Government undertake to carry out what we consider to be the noble and learned Lord's proposal, by an Amendment on the Report stage, subject to this, that we shall annex proposals for compensating those who would be pecuniarily damnified by the proposal. Could anything be more reasonable?

LORD JOICEY

I think the proposal put before the House by the noble Earl is a very serious one, when you consider the large number of places where these establishments have been erected. If you attempt to close them and give compensation for doing so, that compensation will amount to a very large sum indeed, if you are going to close these places to any extent. I think myself that if compensation has to be given there will not be many of the local authorities who will insist upon closing them. It is a very serious matter to enter upon this kind of question of finance without knowing something as to what it is going to cost. If you give compensation it will certainly cost a very large sum indeed to carry out the intention of the Bill.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Does the noble Lord suggest that if a man—for instance, in my own village, there is one of these hideous eyesores—at a cost of £50 or £100 puts up one of these things, and is quite within the law in doing so, he should be compelled to disrupt this rural paradise without a penny of compensation for what he has spent?

LORD JOICEY

I am not responsible for the finance of the Bill.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

In that case the Government proposal holds the field.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I quite understand what the noble Earl now makes plain. I did not understand him to say that the Government did undertake to introduce the necessary Amendment on Report stage, or I would not have interrupted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add to subsection (1) (b)—"except where the filling apparatus is wholly within buildings licensed for the storage of petroleum." The noble Lord said: This is only an Amendment to make the matter clear. If your Lordships will look at subsection (1) (b) it appears to me that the words prohibit the establishment of these filling stations anywhere. In many cases these garages and filling stations are a part of a much bigger building, and the pumps are inside the building. We ought to safeguard pumps which are inside, and indeed to encourage the putting of them inside, but as the Bill stands at the moment it might be taken to include pumps which are inside a building. Therefore I desire to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 41, at end insert ("except where the filling apparatus is wholly within buildings licensed for the storage of petroleum").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am very much afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment, as it would limit the scope of the Bill very seriously, and make it apply only to pumps which were in the open.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I will bring up the matter again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (1), to substitute "six months" for "two years." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment proposes to substitute for the period of two years mentioned at the end of proviso (i) a period of six months, and I think your Lordships will see that that is not an unreasonable proposal. As the Bill stands, it is provided that in making any by-laws a council shall make provision for exempting any petroleum filling station established at the time of the making of the by-laws from any restrictions requiring structural alterations for such period not being less than two years from that time as they may think fit. That means to say, there is a minimum period of two years in which they are bound to have these things unaltered, and surely that is utterly unreasonable. I suggest a minimum period of six months, and for the rest you can trust to the sense of the people who have to administer the by-laws. To say that you must have a minimum period of two years, whatever it is that is required to be done under the Statute, is to my mind to give far too liberal a limit. The structural alterations may be nothing more than the pulling down of a wooden wall, and yet two years must be allowed for that. I think six months is a very reasonable time. It is about the time allowed to pull down a house, and I should think that the removal of these stations might well be placed within the same limit.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13, leave out ("two years") and insert ("six months").—(Lord Buckmaster.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am afraid that this is a very short period of time in which to call upon a man to make, it may be, very large structural alterations, without compensation. As the Bill was originally introduced in another place, the period was five years, and the Government cannot possibly accept so short a time as six months.

EARL BUXTON

I think the proposal is not unreasonable. As a rule these pumping stations require very little structural alteration to bring them within the by-laws, and if it is, to be a very large affair, the local authority will no doubt take that into consideration; but surely they ought to have some power with regard to minor alterations, to require that they should be carried out within six months. I think that two years in such cases is an excessive time to allow these abominations, as they were described by the noble Lord himself, to continue without any possibility of alteration. It is very good of the noble Lord to consider these Amendments on Report, and I should be very glad if he would also take this into account. At all events, two years is excessive, and it is astonishing to learn that the Government originally proposed five years.

LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON

If, as I understand, compensation is to be paid when petrol pumps are removed, I do not see why compensation should not be granted if people are to undertake large structural alterations, and if that is the case I do not see any objection to my noble and learned friend's Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

As one who is practically acquainted with these matters, and very much in sympathy with the general tenour of Lord Buckmaster's Amendment, may I say it would not really be practicable to put in "six months." In ninny cases these filling stations have concrete floors; they are connected up with water, gas, and electric light, and often nowadays they are very substantial buildings. They could not be pulled down in a moment. If two years is too long we might get a compromise on the basis of eighteen months.

LORD BUCKMASTER

If the Government were prepared to deal with me I would be prepared to accept twelve months, but really the point is that this is not two years as a fixed time, this is a minimum of two years; that is, that if you were asking for some perfectly trivial structural alteration to be done, they must, as the Bill stands, have two years to do it in, and you cannot get any less. That surely is ridiculous. "Structural alterations," I beg you to remember, applies to design and appearance of the filling station. I do not suppose that painting would be regarded as a structural alteration, but, if it is, two years would be required for it. I think six months would be sufficient, seeing that it is a bottom limit, and that the body which is enforcing the by-laws can do what it likes in regard to giving a longer time. Twelve months is abundant time, and what the Government meant to do, excepting to legislate for posterity when they introduced five years originally, I cannot think. They were not legislating for you and me.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

All wise Governments legislate largely for posterity, and the noble and learned Lord takes far too gloomy a view of his probable span of life when he says a Government cannot legislate for him which thinks quinquennially. I will provisionally, and without committing myself, agree to eighteen months at this stage. Not having the Home Secretary here I must be allowed the freedom which is always conceded to a Minister in these circumstances, but I think I could persuade the Home Office to accept a period of eighteen months. The noble and learned Lord is a very hard bargainer, and I assure your Lordships that when he offers me twelve months he is very lucky to get eighteen.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

I quite realise that "eighteen months" is something to have gained, but surely it would be much better to take the period of one year. Really, when you come to think what these structures are, and how capable they are of modification by a few days' work in many cases, to put the whole thing off for eighteen months seems excessive, and, speaking with great respect in the presence of two ex-Lords Chancellor, I doubt whether eighteen months is an expression that has ever found its way into an Act of Parliament.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I am sure that the noble and learned Earl will promise further to consider this matter, and to remember that, had I thought he was going to say eighteen months, I should have said nine. But mine was a perfectly genuine proposal, and I do wish that he would reconsider the matter on the hypothesis that I had put in "nine," and see if he cannot possibly reduce it to twelve. Really, twelve months is abundant time.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I frankly would far rather see twelve months in the Bill. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be content with my assurance that I will use my best powers of persuasion with the Home Secretary.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in proviso (ii), before "supply," to insert "present and future." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment intended to give some hint to the local authorities and the people interested that they have to consider the future as well as the present. If the number of motor vehicles increases, as it is certain to do, you might want more of these stations, and in places where you do not think you need them to-day. The words I propose are quite harmless.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, after ("the") insert ("present and future").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

The proposal of this Amendment is to take into account the future needs of any particular area with regard to petrol supplies. I can only say that it would be very difficult for any council to gauge the probable future requirements of any particular area. In some places the demand may go off. The county councils have full powers to amend their by-laws from time to time, and if they find there is an area which requires more petrol they can amend the by-laws to meet the necessities.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and notices shall be published in at least one local newspaper." The noble Lord said: This is rather a more important Amendment. Sometimes county towns are rather a long distance from the outlying parts of counties—in the bigger counties possibly thirty or forty miles. It is important that these notices should have wide publicity. It is not enough that they should only be available to people who go up to the county towns. They ought to be published in at least one local newspaper, and then there would be no chance of the plans being misunderstood.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 27, at end insert ("and notices shall be published in at least one local newspaper").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am not quite sure what my noble friend wants with regard to the notices. He does not want the plans published?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I should think they ought to be, with the notices.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Well, the Home Secretary has, of course, to sanction all by-laws drawn up by the various councils, and there is every intention to give the very fullest notice throughout the whole of the areas to which they apply. That is done in other cases. I should be very happy to mention this to the powers in charge of the Bill, but I think I can give this assurance to my noble friend, that it is intended to give every publicity to all the by-laws, and to exhibit the plans and give every information as to where they can be seen.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I am quite content with the assurance of the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved to add to subsection (4) "and if any council of any county or borough make no by-laws under this section or if in the opinion of the Secretary of State by-laws made under this section are not adequately enforced, the Secretary of State may direct that such by-laws be made or enforced as the case may be." The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to give the Secretary of State a power to direct local authorities to take action under this clause if they do not do so, or if their action is inadequate. I explained on the Second Reading my reasons for thinking that it was probable that the local authorities would not take adequate action under this clause. Perhaps I had better repeat them.

There are two Acts for regulating advertisements. One which was passed in 1907 has a provision precisely analogous to this clause; that is to say, it gives power to local authorities to pass by-laws for restricting advertisements. The second, which was passed in 1925, extends those powers. Of the county councils in England and Wales thirteen have not availed themselves of the extended powers of the Act of 1925 and nine have not passed any by-laws at all or taken any action whatever. Further, those councils who have passed by-laws have, in many cases, not adequately enforced them. In order to be sure of my facts I wrote to the Scapa Society, the body which takes an interest in these matters, after the Second Reading of this Hill and asked whether my facts and figures were right, and I received the following reply from the secretary:— The figures you quote are, I think, quite accurate and it is literally true to say that in some counties there has been, as yet, little if any evidence of any intention to enforce existing by-laws. That is to say, some of the county councils do not carry out the intention of Parliament; and I fear that will happen in the present case.

The Government, perfectly rightly, regard these questions as primarily matters for the local authorities; but I wish to point out that they are also national questions. The amenities of a district, the beauty of the scenery, the interest of historical remains or whatever it might be, are becoming more and more a national concern owing to the increasing means of locomotion. If your Lordships see fit to accept this Amendment and it becomes law, I do not suppose it will ever be necessary to take any action under it, because it will make clear to all local authorities that Parliament considers this a matter of national concern and that the nation intends to see that the amenities of the country are preserved. Should this Amendment be accepted and become law, it would form, I think, a very useful precedent in dealing with the advertisement hoardings which deface the pastures along our railways and roads, and which are, as I think, an offence and, unlike the petrol stations, serve no national purpose whatever. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 43, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am afraid it is not possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. It verges almost on the unconstitutional; that is to say, it would be quite unprecedented for the Secretary of State to interfere in matters of this sort with those bodies to whom local powers have been given under the Bill, and who would exercise them over their different areas. It would place the Home Secretary in a most invidious position if he had to do that, and, of course, he could not do it without a local inquiry on the spot and without hearing what everybody had to say on both sides. In fact, the obliga- tions under it would almost be impossible. The Home Secretary has gone a certain distance with regard to the urban district councils and has given them powers to see that the ordinances of the county councils are enforced in their areas.

With regard to what my noble friend has said about the county councils, I think those councils have done rather well with regard to advertisements. No fewer than forty-two out of sixty-three county councils have already made by-laws under the Advertisements Regulation Act, and that in two and a half years is a very satisfactory performance. I believe also that others are coming in. For the reasons I have given, and I could give many more, I am afraid it would be impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

This is a revolutionary proposal and therefore, in accordance with precedent, it arises from the Tory Benches. But really the view-you take upon this depends (does it not?) upon the view you take of whether a local authority is the only body interested in its geographical area, whether you are to limit your interest in the amenities of the country by county boundaries. It means that if county councils do not choose to take action under these permissive powers which are given to them, those things may happen which Parliament very clearly does not desire to happen and which probably the majority of the inhabitants do not desire to happen. Let me suppose, for example, that the ruins of Glastonbury were entirely surrounded by a mass of petrol pumps and that the county council refused to make by-laws or to take any action, I think those who did not live in the particular geographical area would have some reason to complain. Although I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Lord opposite that this particular method of achieving the object may hardly be possible, still it is worth while considering whether there is not some method of bringing a backward local authority up to the standard other than the most satisfactory but slower one of education.

LORD DESBOROUGH

With regard to that, the Home Secretary has no reason to think that the county councils will be backward in this matter. He has also given an undertaking to the urban district authorities that if they were backward he would communicate with them on the subject and see that they did their duty.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I am rather surprised that the Home Office should decline authority. I should have thought they would have been rather glad to exercise it. The real point behind this Amendment is exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has just said. The truth is that spots of beauty in this country are not the peculiar possession of the people who happen to inhabit the district. They are the possession of us all, and we are all interested in seeing that steps are taken to preserve them as untouched as possible. For one reason or another, and there are many reasons, it may well be that some authority may decline to interfere. As the Bill stands, nothing at all can be done in such an event. If the noble Lord who represents the Home Office thinks that this Amendment gives the Home Office more power than it likes to exercise, and as he is going to consider a very large number of things between now and the Report stage, I wonder whether he could not consider this as well and see whether some means can be devised to secure that in a case of proved inaction and serious damage something could be done to supersede the inactivity of local authorities who allowed the mischief to take place.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I am deeply grieved to hear doctrines so undemocratic preached from lips hitherto accounted Liberal and Socialist. We have deliberately selected a type of self-government which affords to the citizens inhabiting our various areas the right, if I may adapt to small things an expression used in relation to larger ones, of self-determination. We are to be told now not from the Conservative side of the House, that those to whom we have given this local government, which has been at once the admiration and example of the world, are so incompetent to discharge it that some autocrat in Whitehall, my distinguished friend, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, is to be placed in control, on Liberal and Socialist advice, of these democratically-elected assemblies, and that he is to be the judge as to whether or not they are discharging their functions. I suppose he is to send down into every district a court of inquiry to decide whether or not a popularly elected body is doing its duty. Observe how far this proposal of those who are losing confidence in democracy is carrying us. Is this the only respect in which there are defeasances and defects of duty on the part of local authorities? Let us understand. If that is the proposal, let us abolish them and put the Home Secretary in their place.

EARL RUSSELL

I think the noble Earl opposite, if he had reflected for a moment, would not have been quite so violent and general in his observations. He may remember that this particular Government has superseded democratically elected local authorities in the shape of guardians and sent officials down from Whitehall to take the place of those elected by the people.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Does the noble Earl approve of it?

LORD BUCKMASTER

This thing really ought to be cleared up. In spite of what the noble Earl has said, this Amendment has been supported from every Bench. It was moved from the Conservative Benches, although the noble Earl seems to think it sprang from us, and being a very sound and wise Amendment, it has been supported from the Opposition. The only people who appear to object to it are the Government themselves and they object to it on what they are pleased to call democratic principles. For a Conservative Government to object to a thing like this does appear to me to be a most astonishing inversion of the ideas of Conservatism that I have ever heard of. I do not know what the noble Lord who is proposing the Amendment is to do. I see that there are difficulties in the way.

LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON

I shall not touch upon the general question of democracy, but I would like to refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, and the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, have said about self-determination and unconstitutionalism. The clause I seek to amend says: The Secretary of State may confirm any by-laws submitted to him under this section, with or without any modifications. Evidently the Secretary of State may, however democratic he may be, modify these by-laws. Already he does interfere with local government. I do not know whether the noble Lord will consider this question.

LORD DESBOROUGH

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: I have already explained this at the beginning of consideration of the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 6, lines 10 to 17, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, after subsection (8), to insert as a new subsection:— (9) The council of any urban district shall have power to enforce within their district any by-laws in force under this section, and any expenses incurred by a district council under this subsection shall be defrayed as part of their general expenses.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved in consequence of an undertaking which I gave on the Second Reading of the Bill and it is, I believe, approved by those who represent the urban district councils. I have a letter to that effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

May I point out to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that I think we shall get into a great tangle if we disturb the powers of the county council to pass by-laws and give those powers to urban districts. It is important that the county council should be the authority to make by-laws. It is very doubtful whether it would be good policy to suggest that an urban district council or any other council except a county council should have power in this matter. I know that is the view of the County Councils Association.

LORD ARNOLD

There is rather a long history behind this Amendment. I myself made, I am afraid, a somewhat lengthy statement about the position of urban district councils on the Second Reading. On that occasion the noble Lord did not reply. He was courteous, as he always is, and rather suggested that the matter could be more adequately discussed upon this Amendment, which he was going to move. The position in a word is that the urban district councils feel very strongly that they ought to have the power to make these by-laws and there is a great deal to be said for them. Personally I think there is an overwhelming case for it. The Home Secretary was so much impressed with the arguments in favour of that course that he undertook, between the period of the Bill leaving another place and coming here, to consider the matter with a view to seeing what could be done to meet the views of the urban district councils. For reasons I need not go into now, the matter could never be properly discussed in another place. Owing to certain awkward rules of order it was never properly discussed there. The negotiations went on and the Home Secretary undertook to put this Amendment in the Bill in your Lordships' House, if you agreed.

I do not wish now, and I hope it is not necessary, to re-argue the whole question of the extraordinarily anomalous position which arises as between small boroughs having power to make these Regulations under the Bill—boroughs of perhaps 1,200 or 1,500 inhabitants—and urban district councils with 100,000 inhabitants which have not such power. It seems to me an extraordinary and indefensible proceeding. But urban district councils having expressed their case as far as they could and learning that the Government would not give them what they wanted by including them in the Bill, they agreed, as I understand it, to accept this Amendment, which, although it is not what they want, still does give them certain powers in these matters. They are very anxious that by-laws should be made and that, having been made, they should be enforced. I believe I am correct in saying that without this Amendment a district council would have no power to enforce the by-laws in its district—by-laws which have been made by the county councils and which apply to the urban district council area. Without some such words as these they have no power actually to see that the law is carried out. In those circumstances I think it is a reasonable thing they should have this power. The members of an urban district council obviously are the persons who will have most interest in this matter. They live in their own areas, while in many cases the county council is many miles away. There may not be a single county councillor living near and county council officials have many other things to do besides those of a particular district. I think it is right that members of urban district councils, who are themselves so much interested, should have the power to protect the amenities of their own districts.

While I am speaking I would like again to call attention to the confusion in which the Bill now rests owing to this Amendment and owing to the fact that boroughs can make Regulations, although we have been told that the Bill will only apply to rural areas. I hope very much that the noble Lord, when he is discussing this matter, will bear in mind this Amendment and the fact that when the matter was discussed elsewhere a defence was not put up by the Home Secretary that this could not be included because the Bill only applied to rural areas. It is true there were vague references to the countryside and so forth when the matter was first discussed. Now the Amendment is to go into the Bill I think there is an overwhelming case for extending the scope of the Bill. Certainly this does something to meet what I hold is a very distinct grievance of the urban district councils and if it is taken out they will be, I think, unfairly treated.

LORD STRACHIE

When this Bill was introduced in another place it only provided that county councils and borough authorities should make bylaws, and I remember very well that the Home Secretary, when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, said it would be very awkward indeed to have various authorities making by-laws and it would perhaps be better to leave it to the county councils. Apparently the Home Secretary is prepared to change his mind. After Second Reading an Instruction was moved by the Home Secretary to enable the Committee to deal with the question and to put in minor authorities if they thought fit. The Standing Committee of the House of Commons only thought fit to put in boroughs and did not put in urban and rural district councils. That apparently was the view of the House of Commons. I have read the debates very carefully and when the Bill came down from the Standing Committee I find there was no objection taken either on Report stage or on Third Reading to urban councils not being included, so apparently this is only the second or third thought of the Home Office on this matter.

Of course, what they have done is not to give power to urban authorities to make by-laws. What they have done is to give concurrent powers of enforcement of by-laws to urban authorities. That is to say, by-laws made by county councils can also be enforced by urban district councils. This is one of those cases which has always been objected to on both sides of the House. It has always been objected that we ought not to have over-lapping authorities. It is very undesirable that we should have overlapping jurisdiction. I go further and say that it seems to me that it is not a very opportune time to do this when we know by statements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also from the Minister of Health, that this question of the minor authorities and their powers generally and what their areas are to be is all in the melting pot at the present moment. We are told that there is going to be a great Local Government Bill in the next Session, in November, when all these questions will be considered. Therefore, I venture to think this is not the time to deal with the question.

There does not seem to be any precedent for it. The Advertisement Regulation Act, 1925, only authorises county councils to make Regulations. Then, again, in the Shops Act, 1922, only urban districts of 20,000 inhabitants are included. Of course there is a great deal in what my noble friend Lord Arnold has said as regards urban district councils. They are in a different position from the small districts, but as all these questions will have to be considered in the future, I venture to think this is not the time as a second or third thought on the matter to introduce what may cause a great deal of difficulty in having these overlapping authorities. I should rather have liked to see in the Amendment of the noble Lord some further words saying that an urban district should have power, "with the consent of the county council," to enforce these by-laws. I think that would remove any friction or difficulty in the matter. I would like to ask the noble Lord, although he has so many questions to consider between now and Report stage, if he will also consider whether it would not be desirable to put in the words "with the consent of the county council."

I think I have good reason to ask this, because, although this is a very important Amendment which was never discussed in the other House of Parliament, it was brought forward here with only one day's notice. It puts those of us who, like my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and myself, are connected with county councils, in the position of not being able to consult with out friends. I hope the noble Lord will be ready to say that he will consider this question before Report and also that he will give sufficient time—at least a week—so that we may consult our friends on the matter. I can assure him that the County Councils Association feels very strongly indeed on the matter.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not desire to follow the noble Lord into the illogical jungle of overlapping authorities and their powers—that is rather too large a subject—but on the practical question involved in the Amendment, is it not a good plan to enlist such local patriotism as there is in a smaller area and such local interest, that they may, so to speak, clear their own house of the things they object to? The fear is that a supine county council might not enforce by-laws as actively as the residents of a particular area which desire them to be enforced. I should be glad that some one on the spot interested in the matter should be able to take action without waiting for the county council, which might not be inclined to take action. I hope the noble Lord will stick to the Amendment at this stage even if he considers objections between now and the next stage.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The remarks of the noble Lord will be noted, but I am not in a position now to make any promise about Amendments on Report stage. With regard to his complaint that very little Notice was given of the Amendment, I did foreshadow it on Second Reading.

EARL RUSSELL

Quite clearly.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I did indicate that an Amendment would be moved with this object.

LORD STRACHIE

It was not very definite.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I did say that on the Committee stage there would be an Amendment introduced with that object.

LORD ARNOLD

May I just say one word following on the speech of my noble friend Lord Strachie? He is in error in saying that there was no discussion of this in another place. The urban district councils put their case as strongly as they could on April 17. The reason why they did not fight the matter in Committee was that there was no notice. The Instruction was moved late at night and the whole thing was done next morning. But there was quite a long debate as far as the rules of order would allow. It was clearly indicated on Second Reading here, as the noble Lord has said, that an Amendment was going to be put down. It was discussed al length in one or two speeches.

LORD STRACHIE

I was only asking the noble Lord if he would consider the question between now and Report stage? He did not reply to the question I asked whether he would allow sufficient time between now and the Report stage for those members, like Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and myself, who are particularly concerned, to have an opportunity of consulting with our friends upon this matter and ascertaining the county councils' point of view.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Would Monday, June 11, be too early?

LORD STRACHIE

Oh, certainly not.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Well, Monday, June 11, then.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

By-laws as to loading, conveyance and landing of petroleum-spirit in and upon canals.

(5) in this section the expression "canal" and "canal company" have respectively the same meanings as in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873.

LORD DESBOROUGH

To this clause I have two drafting Amendments, to which I have alluded. In the definition clause all the definitions are put together.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 6, leave out ("contravention") and insert ("offence").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 8 to 10, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Dcsborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:—

Interpretation.

"In this Act and for the purposes of the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1926, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:— Amenities," in relation to any place, includes any view of or from that place: Canal" and "canal company" have respectively the same meanings as in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873: Contravention" includes, in relation to any provision, a failure to comply with that provision, and the expression "contravene" shall be construed accordingly: Motor vehicles" includes all mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads: Petroleum filling station" means any premises or place used or intended to be used by way of trade or for purposes of gain for fuelling motor vehicles with petroleum, and includes any building, advertisement, pump, or other apparatus in or used in connection with any such premises.

The noble Lord said: This is the definition clause to which I have referred.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 14, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Drafting and minor amendments.

(2) In this Act and for the purposes of the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1926, the expression "contravention" includes in relation to any provision a failure to comply with that provision and the expression "contravene" shall be construed accordingly.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I have a purely consequential Amendment to move to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 20 to 24, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule [Minor Amendments]:

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Amendments to this Schedule are merely verbal alterations, for the sake of clearness.

Amendments moved— Page 11, line 15, in the second column at the beginning insert ("In the first paragraph, after the Word 'may' there shall be inserted the words 'and, except in the case of an offence which involves a penalty exceeding fifty pounds, shall';") Page 11, line 36, leave out ("for the word 'failure' there shall be substituted the words 'contravention occurs or'") and insert ("after the word 'failure' there shall be inserted the words 'occurs or'") Page 12, line 37, at end, insert ("and after the word 'failure,' where that word secondly occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'occurs or'") Page 12, line 45, at end, insert ("and after the word 'fine' there shall be inserted the words not exceeding fifty pounds, or on conviction on indictment to a fine'")—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to

Remaining Schedule agreed to.