CLAUSE 4.—(Powers as to land.) (Hansard, 30 November 1948)

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer
I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out "civil defence."
With your permission, Mr. Touche, and that of the Committee, might we take together this Amendment and the following Amendment. In page 4, line 12, after "shelter," insert: being any premises, structure or excavation used or intended to be used to provide shelter from any form of hostile attack by a foreign power.

§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Touche)
If the Committee are agreeable, that would be the most convenient course.

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer
We consider that the wording of the Clause could be improved. Because the words "civil defence shelter" have been used in this Clause, the necessity has arisen for defining what is a civil defence shelter in Clause 9, and in our opinion that involves all the difficulties of the definition of "civil defence." As we see it, the words "civil defence" include trenches, emplacements for the Armed Forces and measures that the Armed Forces may take for their own passive defence. We shall have further discussion on the question of the definition of "civil defence" later on, but my point is that a certain amount of discussion will take place on the words "civil defence" and all the difficulties we see involved in that are also involved in the definition of the words "civil defence shelter" in Clause 9. The operative words in Clause 4 are: In the discharge of any functions exercisable under this Act"— that is to say, under Civil Defence. Therefore, any shelter provided under this Clause must be a civil defence shelter and there is no need for the words "civil defence" to be inserted. We wish to remove the words "civil defence" so that under Clause 9 there will arise only the necessity to define the meaning of the word "shelter."

§ Mr. Ede
I am afraid it is not possible to accept the Amendment. The definition of "civil defence shelter" now appears in Clause 9, and there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member to delete that, and therefore quite clearly we must have regard to that Amendment, as well as to the following 1896 Amendment, in dealing with this one. It will inevitably be necessary to use this expression in regulations made under the Bill, more particularly in the exercise of powers under Clause 6, where we are dealing with shelters for a great group of civilian workers who will be employed in the buildings which will come under Clause 6. The provisions of the Act of 1939, now in suspense, on the subject of shelters have reference to the provision of air raid shelter which is defined in the Act as "shelter against hostile attack from the air," and in the event of the revival of any of the relevant Sections of the Act of 1939, it is intended to follow the obviously desirable course of enlarging the provisions with regard to air raid shelter so as to cover shelter from any form of hostile attack. Therefore, we need this definition for the purpose of ensuring that something far wider than anything which has previously been regarded as air raid shelter shall be included in the powers which we have under the Bill. It is, therefore, desirable to retain this.
In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), I cannot think that a trench or shelter dug by the Military Forces for their own protection could be regarded as Civil Defence. It is clearly a military work designed to protect the military in the course of an attack and I am surprised to hear that there has been any misgiving in any quarter of the House that the phrase "civil defence shelter" could have been thought to have impinged in any way on what might be required by any of the Forces or any part of them for their own defence when they happen to be in this country.

§ Sir J. Anderson
I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not prepared to consider this Amendment, which is really of a drafting character. I direct his attention to the definition of "civil defence shelter" in Clause 9 which it is agreed must be looked at in connection with this Amendment. He will see that the wording is very unsatisfactory because "civil defence shelter" is defined to mean: Any premises, structure or excavation used or intended to be used to provide shelter from any form of hostile attack by a foreign power. The Home Secretary said that he could not conceive that any shelter dug by the 1897 military authorities for their own purposes would be regarded as a civil defence shelter, but the definition is there as plain as a pike-staff and it is wide enough to cover any shelter.
8.0 p.m.
No reference is made to the agency employed in constructing it. It merely says: any shelter to be used to provide shelter from any form of hostile attack by a foreign power. It occurs to us that if the words "civil defence" were omitted before the word "shelter" in this Clause and we imported after "shelter" the words which appear in the definition of a "civil defence shelter," we should get rid of the difficulty and avoid the definition of "civil defence shelter" in Clause 9 and be able to address ourselves solely to the definition of "civil defence." I hope that the Home Secretary will look at this again. It is not a matter which we wish to press, but is purely a matter of drafting.

§ Mr. Ede
In view of that explanation, I will certainly look at it again. We do not want to find that we are being called upon to pay 100 per cent. reimbursement to the military for providing shelters for military units. If there is any danger that the Clause might be so construed, I think we should have another look at it, and I will undertake to examine this again between now and Report stage.

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer
In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ede
I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out from "shall" to "have" in line 31.
This is a manuscript Amendment. I desire to accept in a few moments the Amendment, in page 4, line 38, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). If I accept that Amendment, as I desire to do, it will render these words unnecessary because they are repeated in paragraph (a) in the proposed Amendment.

§ Mr. Ede
I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out "it," and to insert "that or any other land." 1898 I think it will be convenient if we also discuss the Amendment, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from "purposes," to the end of line 38. Subsection (3, a) gives power of entry on land for the purpose of inspecting it with a view to ascertaining whether or not anything ought to be constructed or done thereon or any use made thereof for civil defence purposes. The main object of Subsection (3, b) is to enable entry to be made on any other land which it might be necessary to inspect in connection with the land referred to in Subsection (4, a). For example, the inspection of a garden for the purposes of considering its use as a site for a shelter might necessitate the inspection also of an adjoining garden. Subsection (4, b) goes further than this, and these Amendments are designed to confine Subsection (3) to the objects in view. The effect is to add a reference in Subsection (3, a) to any other land and to delete Subsection (3, b). As I have said, these Amendments give us the power we wish to have without going beyond what we legitimately require.

§ Mr. Peake
I beg to move, in page 4. line 38, at the end, to insert: Provided that a person proposing to exercise a power of entry conferred under this section—

(a) shall, if so required, produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority;

(b) shall not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier."
The right hon. Gentleman has already indicated that he is prepared to accept this Amendment. It is designed to bring this Bill into line with a number of other enactments providing the right of entry on land for inspection purposes. Perhaps the latest example is the licensing Measure which the right hon. Gentleman introduced for its First Reading quite recently. It contains a similar proviso to the proviso we are suggesting here. That is to say, it provides that 24 hours' notice shall be given of intention to enter upon land, which also includes houses, 1899 for the purpose of ascertaining whether any Civil Defence works are required thereon.

§ Mr. Ede
I have already indicated that I am prepared to accept this Amendment. Paragraph (a) merely re-enacts the words we have just left out, and paragraph (b) is a reasonable safeguard for the person whose land it is proposed to inspect. I think that such a person ought to be given some notice, and if 24 hours is satisfactory to the Opposition, I can see no reason to cavil at it.

§ Brigadier Head (Carshalton)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, at the end, to insert: (4) If:

(a) any person who, in compliance with the provisions of this section, is admitted into a factory or workplace, discloses, otherwise than in the performance of his duty, to any person any information obtained by him in the factory or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret; or

(b) any person to whom, by reason of his official position, any information obtained as aforesaid is disclosed, discloses, otherwise than in the performance of his duty, that information to any person
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. This Amendment is similar to the Amendment which has just been accepted by the Committee. There are bound to be instances where officials will have to have access to factories where they may be put into possession of trade secrets which might cause very considerable difficulties. This Amendment is not merely a safeguard in that connection, but it also makes this Bill consistent with other Measures—the words proposed have been taken from a similar Section in the River Boards Act. As I have said, if this Amendment is accepted it will avoid difficulties and embarrassment to business concerns.

§ Mr. Ede
I would point out, first, that it has not been necessary within the past experience of the Home Office to provide safeguards against persons who have the right of entry on land. However, I recognise that there is a danger and that certain people may feel a lack of confidence in admitting people to 1900 their establishments, thinking that there is a danger of trade secrets being betrayed. Therefore, I can see no objection to accepting this Amendment, although on Report stage I shall wish to add at the end: to make the penalty both such fine and imprisonment, which is now fairly common form in this kind of legislation.

§ Major Legge-Bourke
In Subsection (2) there is a proviso which says: (b) in no event shall the said powers be exercised unless the designated Minister or local authority, as the case may be, is or are satisfied that the shelter will not so obstruct the highway as substantially to diminish the utility of the highway to the public. I wish to ask the Home Secretary what is to happen when a local authority, for reasons which are based on a false assessment of the danger involved, insists that a shelter should not be erected on the highway. I hesitated to put down an Amendment on this point, because the right hon. Gentleman has better technical advice than I have, but I ask him to consider whether something might not be done to differentiate between the times when the country is at war and when it is at peace. Town and country planning is involved in this matter. There may be some roads which, in peace time, are considered to be essential as public thoroughfares but which, in war time, might not be considered so essential, although desirable as thoroughfares. Is there, under this Clause, a complete tie-up with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning? In the event of a local authority and the Home Secretary agreeing on the erection of a shelter, could the Ministry of Town and Country Planning disapprove? Unless the powers of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning are quite clear there may be a clash of interests. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down an Amendment on Report to make the position clear to all concerned.

§ Mr. Ede
I think it unlikely that such a divergence of view would occur in peace time. We are now dealing with peacetime preparations for Civil Defence, and while a site might well be marked out on 1901 a highway as being appropriate for a shelter in war time we do not anticipate that many shelters will be erected in the near future. If there were a conflict of opinion we should have to use our sweet reasonableness in order to arrive at a suitable arrangement. I am not sure that in certain cases it will not be more likely that a local authority will press for a shelter, and the Minister might resist on the ground that he does not regard it as essential to peace-time preparations. The question of a conflict with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will have to be dealt with under regulations made under Clause 2 (2, d). Arrangements will be made to ensure that that Ministry's considerations will have adequate thought bestowed on them when the question of erections and excavations arises.

§ Major Legge-Bourke
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but are we to understand that the powers of this Clause are to cease, and that something will be put in its place, in the event of war? I understand that this Bill is only for peace-time purposes, and that a different Bill might be introduced in the event of war.

§ Mr. Ede
If war comes the kind of points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has advanced will have to be given very different consideration from that which is given them in peace time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is an Army officer, and I have no doubt that during military operations he did one or two things that would shock even himself if he tried to do them in peace time. I am not asking him to enter a confessional on that matter, but the kind of thing he has mentioned might be resolved by the harsh necessities of war, in a way which people regret at the time but recognise as a necessity. There were many things we had to do in Civil Defence during the 1939–45 war that none of us would have attempted to do in peace time. One of the difficulties now confronting us is that we were pressed, when hostilities ceased, to remove shelters that were eyesores and were in awkward places. That was done. I have no doubt that some of these shelters, in the event of another conflict, would have to be re-erected, if not in the same places then in places which would give even greater offence than last 1902 time to our aesthetic senses. It must not be thought that in war time any Minister would be limited by the powers that are being granted under this Bill.