Lords Sitting of 11 June 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Aberdeen Corporation; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY (CONSOLIDA TION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against the said Bill be extended to Thursday next.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WINDERMERE GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM WAY SUBWAY AND IMPROVE MENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDA TION).
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Warrington of Clyffe be added to the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to add one of their members to the said Joint Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
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—

(a) regulating the design, colour and appearance of petroleum filling stations; or

(b) prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations in any part of their area to which the by-laws apply:

Provided that—

(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

365
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

(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.

(3) No by-laws made under this section shall come into force until confirmed by the Secretary of State, and before submitting any such by-laws to the Secretary of State, the council by whom the by-laws were made shall, in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of State, publish a draft thereof, together with notice of the place where the plans marked in accordance with the provisions of this section may be inspected, and of the intention of the council to apply for the confirmation of the by-laws.
(5) By-laws made under this section by the council of any county shall not have effect within any borough within the county.
(6) In the event of a contravention of any by-law made under this section the person contravening the by-law, and the occupier of any premises in respect of which the contravention occurs, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for each day on which the contravention occurs or continues.
(8) 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.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER moved, at the beginning of the clause, to leave out "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 noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment that stands in my name is for the purpose of omitting the words of limitation at the commencement of Clause 5. Those of your Lordships who were present on the occasion of the discussion in Committee will remember that we occupied a certain amount of time in amending and suggesting Amendments to the words that originally appeared in the Bill, and I think that when the Bill passed through the Committee stage there were a good many of your Lordships who did not
366
think that the words then incorporated in it were wholly satisfactory. Indeed, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (Lord Desborough) has himself now suggested an Amendment to some of these words, as well as an alteration in their sequence.
The purpose of Clause 5 of the Bill is to enable the council of any county or borough to make by-laws dealing with petroleum filling stations, and these words in the first three lines are purely words of limitation. I do not know why there should be any limitation at all in this matter. If we are of opinion that the council of the county or borough is the proper authority to make by-laws relating to petroleum filling stations why not give them full power to do so? Why limit them in any way? The difficulty of words of limitation is that you are never quite certain that you have included in them everything that you want to include. Parliament, we know, is very wise but it is not so wise that it knows everything that may happen in the future, and there may be cases that are not included in the present limiting words that Parliament would have liked to see included. Then it will be too late, because when this Bill has gone through and become an Act there is very little chance of any amendment being made to it for some years to come.
The effect of my Amendment would simply be to strike out these words of limitation and to give a completely free hand to the councils of counties and boroughs to do as they please in this matter. This seems to me to be reasonable. It does not contradict anything that appears in the Bill and the council of a county or borough will still find its action qualified by that which appears in the subsequent clauses. As a mere matter of drafting I think that this Amendment is of use. It is desirable to make the drafting of the Bill as clear and authoritative as possible. It is for these reasons therefore that I beg to move the omission of these first few words in Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 30 to 32, leave out ("For the purpose of preserving the amenities of any rural scenery or place of beauty or of historic interest for the enjoyment of the public").—(Viscount Ullswater.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid it is impossible for the

367
Government to accept this Amendment, which would give county councils and borough councils an absolutely unfettered discretion in the making of by-laws regulating the appearance or prohibiting the establishment of petrol filling stations. The whole purpose with which the Bill was introduced in another place was to prevent the defilement of the countryside and of picturesque towns and villages by unsightly petrol filling stations. It was in this mind that the House of Commons accepted this clause, not without considerable discussion and, I think I may add, some misgiving. Nobody would deny that the places mentioned here are among the amenities of rural scenery, and it will be found later in the Bill that "amenities" is defined as including any view of or from a place. I hope that this will, to some extent, meet the criticism that Lord Buckmaster delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill.
I do not think that anybody would wish to give local authorities power to make by-laws absolutely prohibiting these filling stations and pumps, even in manufacturing towns and in great cities, without giving some reason. There must be some reason given for prohibiting these pumps, which hitherto have been quite legal. I may also say that it would enormously increase the difficulties of drawing up any code of by-laws to apply all over the country unless you state some reasons such as "preserving the amenities of any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest," together with certain words that I propose to add later by an Amendment I shall move for the purpose of meeting the criticisms made by my noble friends Lord Buckmaster and Lord Arnold in Committee. But it would to a large extent nullify the object of the Bill if the powers were made so wide as to make it practically impossible to draw up by-laws and I do not believe that the local authorities would draw them up. So I am afraid that as this is the foundation of Clause 5, and as that clause when amended will I think meet all the requirements of the case, it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, though I quite realise the objects of my noble friend.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot help regretting that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment. I do not think that the reasons alleged by the noble Lord for its refusal are adequate. He says that a county council would be unable to draw up by-laws if you gave them the widest possible powers. I cannot understand that. If they have the widest possible power to establish by-laws they must find it easier to draw them up than they would if limited in their authority. The Amendment that I moved in Committee, which has been embraced—I might almost say swallowed up—by the Amendment of the noble Viscount, was one which enabled you to do what is wanted in any town or village, which, again, was perfectly plain and simple. The Government realised that something was needed and they are proposing further words, but if your Lordships will look at the Amendments they propose you will realise at once that they make the basis of the validity of the by-laws the existence of a certain series of uncertain facts and that is the most dangerous thing you could possibly have when you are seeking to enforce by-laws.
Take, for example, some of the words which the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, proposes to introduce. You may, for the purpose of preserving a "pleasure promenade" draw up by-laws. What is a pleasure promenade? Piccadilly? Can any one tell me? And yet, remember, it is upon that determination that the validity of the by-law will depend. If you establish that what the county council thought was a pleasure promenade is not, in the wisdom of the body which has to determine on the validity of the by-law, a pleasure promenade, the whole thing fails. Take another thing—the phrase a "place which is of interest by reason of its picturesque character." Of interest to whom? And what is a picturesque character? Some of your Lordships, I have no doubt, remember reading a most interesting book called "Dr. Syntax in search of the picturesque." I do not think he ever found it. And certainly there is nobody here who is able to define in plain language what is meant by that word. Yet it has to be defined if you are going to make by-laws depend for their validity upon its existence.

369
I do most seriously submit that these proposals of the Government will render these by-laws the subject of controversy almost everywhere that they are put in force and that is the one thing that you want to avoid. What you ought to secure is that the by-laws may be plain and that they should be obeyed. Under this proposal of the Government they certainly will not be plain and whether they will be obeyed is a matter that must be left to the future. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, I really do not see what is the objection to this Amendment of the noble Viscount. He proposes that power should be given to county councils to regulate these petrol filling establishments. That is precisely what we want. We want, wherever these things are to be found, power for their regulation, and not power for their regulation depending upon a series of hypotheses but power for their regulation depending upon the fact that the county council which has control of the area says in the exercise of its authority that it thinks the particular spot and the particular character of the petrol pumps are such that they ought to be removed. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. I am sure that all of your Lordships are anxious to do everything in your power to prevent the further invasion of our country by these horrible erections and to secure that they shall be removed if they defile and despoil the beauty spots of the country. I hope that the noble Viscount will press the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I should like to put one point to the noble Lord which has not yet, I think, been sufficiently elucidated. I regret very much that this Amendment has not been accepted. It is much the best thing to do—the business-like thing to do, and if it were accepted all questions would be placed at rest. The point I want to put is in regard to the word "rural." Are we still to understand that the governing word in this clause is the word "rural"?—because that remains in. The words are:—
"For the purpose of preserving the amenities of any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest …."
Those are the three governing considerations. Despite that fact we are told, a line or two later, that any county or borough council may make by-laws. How
370
can borough councils make by-laws, save in very rare instances, if the matter has to do with rural conditions and if "rural" is to be the consideration? Why has the noble Lord put down later on an Amendment relating to the way in which matters will work in the City of London? What has that got to do with "rural"? I should very much like an explanation of this. I really think the matter has not been sufficiently thought out. I have asked about this before and no reply has been given. You might apply the test of these words to a place like Chislehurst. It might be said that that is not a place of beauty and that it has no historical interest. I really think the matter wants further consideration or else—which would be the best thing—that the Amendment of the noble Viscount should be accepted.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster has rather impinged on the next Amendment which I am going to move. I cannot quite agree with what he has said about pleasure promenades. There is a very large number of pleasure promenades, especially on the Thames. The Borough of Reading has made a very beautiful promenade on the river bank and they are to be found at Kingston and Windsor and numerous other places. They are promenades and are called promenades, and it would be a very great pity if petrol pumps were put there. There nothing new in these words. I thought the noble and learned Lord was acquainted with the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907. These words were used there and they have been used in more recent times. In 1925 Lord Newton introduced his Advertisements Regulation Bill. There is nothing very new in the words. They were introduced owing to the criticisms made when the Bill was in Committee which criticisms we hope have been met. We introduced them in a spirit of great conciliation in order to meet the two noble Lords, and I personally feel some disappointment that our effort has not been met with some recognition as an effort in the right direction.
But this Amendment is a great deal too wide; it is so wide that it would defeat itself. You cannot entrust power to local authorities without giving any direction of any sort about the drawing up of by-

371
laws, without giving some reason, or at all events some guide, to those local authorities whose duty it would be to draw up these by-laws and submit them to the Home Office. You must give some reason for making a very drastic alteration of what you propose to do and I am afraid, notwithstanding what has been said by my two noble friends opposite, that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, there is another difficulty which occurs to me and it is this. Supposing that the council of a county or borough make by-laws "regulating the design, colour and appearance of petroleum filling stations," who is going to say whether what is at the back of the mind of the council in making those by-laws is "for the purpose of preserving the amenities" and so forth? If a council make by-laws, who is going to be the judge whether that council have acted within the limiting words of this clause or not? It seems to me that if anybody says to the council: "You have made by-laws which you are not authorised to make because this is not a picturesque place or a public park or a promenade or anything of that sort," they will say: "We consider that it is. We consider that it is picturesque and that it is a promenade." Therefore, if the council have power to make these by-laws, I cannot conceive what the object is of trying to limit them by words which really have no legal enforcement. You cannot enforce upon a council the duty of saying in so many words: "We consider that Street A or Avenue B is picturesque and therefore we have made this by-law." They simply say: "We have made this by-law and there it is. We have made it under the powers that are given to us." You cannot call them over the coals for having acted ultra vires. Therefore it seems to me to be futile to introduce these words, and, if futile, we had far better not have them in the Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, with all respect to the noble Viscount, the point which he has taken in his second speech is not a good one. The matter can be perfectly well tested and perfectly pronounced upon. A by-law made by a local authority is either intra vires or ultra vires. Whether it
372
is ultra vires or not depends upon the decision which can be taken by any competent Court, and the validity of a by-law is decided by whether it falls within the limiting words or not. Supposing, for instance, that a by-law is passed prohibiting the erection of these pumps in the middle of a London slum. It would probably occur to somebody to challenge it and to point out that there was no very discernible rural scenery in the immediate neighbourhood. Then the by-law would be pronounced to be bad. I have taken an extreme case; but the same decision would fall to be taken by the competent authority in relation to any of the words. I must confess I am a little astonished that so much difficulty should once again be anticipated by very eminent members of my own former profession in construing words. For instance, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, whom I always found extremely acute in construing anything when it was before him, professes himself to be quite unable to conceive what a pleasure promenade is.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble and learned Lord greatly underrates both his experience and his ingenuity. Every promenade is a place which you can walk in, but every place which you can walk in is not a promenade. As my noble friend, Lord Desborough, has pointed out, these words were inserted some years ago in an Act of Parliament and have been construed ever since without any difficulty at all. I dare say that my noble and learned friend has construed them himself or would have construed them had they come before him.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am not aware that they have ever been before the Courts.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If they had been does the noble and learned Lord confess himself incompetent to construe them?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I should like to hear my noble friend giving judgment in his official capacity and saying, "My Lords, the Legislature has used the expression 'pleasure promenade.' I am quite unable to construe it or even to conjecture what is meant by it." Let us

373
address ourselves with some sense of probability to these questions. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Desborough, on the combined pressure which we had attempted to exercise upon the Home Office in a humble manner, had met the main objections to this Bill, and, like my noble friend, I am disappointed at the reception with which our efforts have met. And when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, supports with such enthusiasm the Amendment of the noble Viscount I am tempted to point out to him that he moved an Amendment on the Committee stage which was not consistent with that of the noble Viscount, because he moved an Amendment to include villages among places the amenities of which deserve protection.
LORD BUCKMASTER: And towns.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: And towns. If the right solution of the matter is to have no qualification at all it must be wrong to move that "villages" and "towns" should be added. We followed tentatively and imitatively the lines that the noble and learned Lord set us and we have not really met with a very reasonable reception. We have guarded, as far as we can guard in every conceivable way, the protection of the rural beauties of this country. That, and that alone, was the object of the House of Commons. The purpose of the House of Commons was a little strained by the Amendment which even introduced this clause into the Bill and I would venture to say quite plainly that I greatly doubt whether an extension of that which we now propose would have the slightest chance of being favourably received in another place. I respectfully ask noble Lords to be content with the not inconsiderable attempts that have been made to meet them in this matter.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I should like to add that I think the noble Earl has not been very fortunate in his reference to slums. The slums of ancient cities are very often much the most picturesque part of them. I could take the noble and learned Earl to many slums in London and other old cities which I am sure he would consider to be of interest by reason of their picturesque character. It is absurd to say—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But they would not be rural.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: Does this refer only to rural?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It is limited to rural. But it could not come under the rural head of the clause. If we are dealing with slums let me say this. The illustration I took was intended to be borrowed from some such place as Whitechapel. I was only dealing with the main point of the noble Viscount that there was no method of determining whether a local authority had acted within the limiting words or not. The Courts could be asked to say whether the local authority acted reasonably in so deciding. If they could not say that they would decide that the by-law was ultra vires. If they could say that they would decide that the by-law was intra vires. There is authority to decide the matter.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: But the Court could not be taken down there to, see it, and is not that going to reduce the thing to absurdity? How is the Superior Court going to decide whether the place is one of a picturesque character or not? Half the Court will be one way and half the other way. Some of those who have picturesque and artistic minds and education will take one view and those who do not care about this sort of thing will take another. It seems to me to be absurd to place solemnly upon a Court the duty of deciding as to whether a thing is or is not of a beautiful or picturesque character.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment before the question is put. But I desire to point out that the noble Earl in his speech did not touch the real question which is that the drafting of this Government Bill is in such a form as to introduce confusion into the law. How can a Court dive into the motives of a person who is before it, particularly when that person is a corporation? The old Judges always said that could not be done and the modern Judges have said that it cannot be done. How can you confine the powers that are given here by the motives which have to be attributed to the corporation exercising the powers? It only introduces confusion and an impossible task for the Courts. I should

375
have thought the only scientific way of dealing with this was to strike out all these words about purposes and motives and leave the thing as it stands.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Where does the reference to the motive come?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: "For the purpose of preserving"—what is that but a motive? It is called a purpose here, but it is a motive. How can you go into the motives of a corporation? Again the word "rural" has been brought in, which is a very restrictive term. I do not think it was the intention of the House to confine the powers which this clause conferred merely to rural scenery. These seem to be two formidable points against the clause which I hope your Lordships will take into consideration.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: May I be allowed to point out to the noble Viscount that the words "for the purpose of" have been used at least in 150 Acts of Parliament and I should be surprised if they have not been used in 5,000.
LORD DANESFORT: Could the Government answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, which I think has not yet been answered, whether in these words which are under consideration the word "rural" governs all that follows, or only the word scenery? Does it mean it must be a rural place of beauty and also a rural place of historic interest? It is a serious question. For instance, there are many places of interest and beauty which are not rural, and would it be intended or suggested that it would be right to put up one of these horrible atrocities say in the neighbourhood of one of our great cathedrals? If the word "rural" in these words governs the words "place of beauty or historic interest" then it would make a very great difference, and a county council might not be able to prevent the erection of one of these horrors in the neighbourhood of a cathedral. Perhaps the Government will tell us whether the word "rural" does or does not govern any words except scenery. If it does not govern anything but scenery would it not be better to put in, after scenery, "or of
376
any place of beauty and historic interest"
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The word "rural" does not govern the clause in which it occurs. It is not necessary to insert any such words as the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, suggests, because the construction of the sentence makes it plain.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say that is no answer to the very wise and sound argument of the noble Lord opposite. The words are: "of any rural scenery or place of beauty." Does the word "rural" apply not only to scenery, but also to places of beauty, and to the other words "of historic interest"? I should have thought clearly it did; at any rate, if it is not so it ought to be made clear. However, I am entirely in accord with the Amendment of the noble Viscount, and I hope it will be carried, in which case these minor questions will not arise.
LORD DESBOROUGH: With regard to the question the word "rural" is not intended to govern the whole. I think if your Lordships read it you will see that it is Only rural scenery and places of historic interest. It does not govern the whole. I should like to satisfy my noble friend opposite as to the way it arose. It was in this way. While this Bill was in another place representations were made from the County Councils Association, or at any rate several county councils wrote asking if there could not be something inserted in the Bill to prevent the destruction of rural scenery. Then that idea was expanded on the lines which are already familiar to Parliament, and which have been adopted in the Advertisements Regulation Act. I should like to assure my noble friends that these difficulties and impossibilities and absurdities, which seem so big to them, have not cropped up in regard to the Advertisements Regulation Act for which county councils have made regulations. They can make regulations on almost the same words, taking away all advertisements, and surely it is not outside the power or the wit of man to draw up regulations on the same terms for doing away with the red, yellow and

377
green pumps which to some people are even more objectionable than the advertisements. The only point I wish to make is that what is possible in one way is equally possible in another.
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), after "For the purpose of preserving," to insert "for the enjoyment of the public," and to leave out "for the enjoyment of the public" where those words appear in the subsection and insert "or of any public park or pleasure promenade, or of any street or place which is of interest by reason of its picturesque character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two Amendments ought to be taken together, at any rate for the purpose of explanation. If these Amendments are accepted the clause will then read:—
"For the purpose of preserving for the enjoyment of the public"—
that is an important phrase. It runs through the whole of the Bill. The Bill is not drafted in the interests of any particular individual who happens to object to petrol pumps. The whole idea is the protection of the public—
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Onslow, E.

Hanworth, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Heneage, L.

Sutherland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Lawrence, L.

Exeter, M.

Westmorland, E.

Lovat, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Airlie, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Monkswell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Clarendon, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Ampthill, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Derby, E.

Armstrong, L.

Sempill, L.

Grey, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Templemore, L.

Howe, E.

Cushendun, L.

Wharton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Danesfort, L.

Wyfold, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Newton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Charnwood, L.

Olivier, L.

Russell, E.

Clwyd, L.

Parmoor, L.

Strafford, E.

de Clifford, L.

Queenborough, L.

Forester, L.

Redesdale, L.

Allendale, V.

Hindlip, L.

Strachie, L.

Haldane, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Swaythling, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Thomson, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Ystwyth, L.

"the amenities of any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest, or of any public park or pleasure promenade, or of any street or place, which is of interest"—
this was put in especially to please my noble friend Lord Buckmaster—
"by reason of its picturesque character, the council of any county or borough may make by-laws"—
On the last occasion that this Bill was before your Lordships Lord Buckmaster moved an Amendment to include villages and towns among the places the amenities of which should be protected by bylaws, and Lord Arnold moved an Amendment to include residential districts. Great consideration has been given to both these suggestions, but the Government could not agree to Lord Arnold's proposal to include residential districts. The object of the clause, as approved by the House of Commons, is not only to protect the country, side, but also to preserve the beauties of other places for the enjoyment of the public. I do not think that would include by-laws ordering the

379
removal of these pumps from merely residential areas or because any particular individual did not like them. That would be for the benefit practically of a limited portion of the public. We could not include the whole of towns because it would be very difficult, I am afraid, to add to the collective ugliness of a great many of our towns. Parliament has already in other Acts recognised the difference between rural districts and towns.
The Home Office certainly will experience the very greatest difficulty in approving draft by-laws. They will have an enormous amount of work to do if the Bill passes. They will be in communication with every county council and borough council in the country who will come to them for advice, and it will increase the difficulties enormously if there is not some guide given by Parliament as to the lines on which by-laws should be drawn up. It has not been found insuperable in such cases as arise under the Advertisements Regulation Act and I am sure it will not be found insuperable in this case. I think it is much more likely that county councils and borough councils will draw up by-laws and submit them to the Home Office, if they have a guiding line on which to go in such a drastic matter as ordering the removal or regulation of pumps. In the circumstances I hope your Lordships' House will be willing to adopt the clause as suggested. On the occasion of the last debate there was particular mention of streets, say, in the middle of an old town which could not perhaps be called a place of beauty or historic interest, though the street might be of interest by reason of its picturesque character. The county or borough authorities would have good reason for including such a spot within the by-laws. The first Amendment is really only verbal. It will take out words for the purpose of inserting them in another place. I hope the Amendments will meet the objections raised by the two noble Lords opposite. I assure them both that that was the object of the draftsman and I can only express the hope that that object has been attained.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): I think the two Amendments ought formally to be put separately.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I suggest that the Amendments should
380
be put separately because I want to propose a drafting Amendment in line 31 when the first Amendment is disposed of.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already said that the Amendments ought to be put separately.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, alter ("preserving") insert ("for the enjoyment of the public").—(Lord Desborough.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I regret very much the absence at this moment of the Leader of the House, all the more because I was pleased to see his return after a notably prolonged absence. I am sorry he is not here now because I wished to make a personal appeal to him. It is one of the few rules of order in your Lordships' House that no Peer may speak more than once on any matter while we are on the Report stage. On the Committee stage, of course, a Peer may make as many speeches as he wishes, but this is not the Committee stage. I am quite sure that making a number of speeches as noble Lords did on the last Amendment simply leads to confusion and difficulty. Perhaps I may make an appeal to my noble friend the Secretary of State for India and say that I hope that he will support me in my suggestion that we should make a self-denying ordinance to keep on this occasion to the rules of order and only make one speech, except in the case of a noble Lord who moves an Amendment.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am very much indebted to the noble Earl for the observations that he has made. I was myself an offender against the rule, which certainly ought to be observed and always has been observed, even among the somewhat unceremonious habits of our debates. But I would ask the noble Earl to take notice that I made an additional observation only when I was explicitly asked a question, and this can without discourtesy hardly be avoided by a Minister. I entirely agree with the noble Earl.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, of course the truth of the matter is that, notwithstanding my protest, this House did deliberately postpone the Committee stage of this Bill to Report. That is what really happened, and it is owing

381
to this that a debate took place on the Report stage which would have been better carried on under the rules applicable to the Committee stage. There were certainly many further things that I wanted to say. I do not suppose that they would have had any effect upon your Lordships, but they would have relieved my mind. The noble Lord who has just spoken seems to me to be like the man referred to by Samuel Johnson when he was asked what he was going to do in making a second marriage. Johnson said: "It is the triumph of hope over experience." How in the world the noble Lord can hope that we shall like these words, which we have spent some three-quarters of an hour in saying that we profoundly dislike, I really do not understand. Of course we do not like them. Whether we have to accept them is another matter. I cannot help thinking that even now it would be better to adopt the line that I suggested. But that has been considered and has been rejected, and I know that one must accept defeat.
But when it is put to us that we do not appear to have met the advances of the Government in a very friendly way, I would like respectfully to suggest to the Government that this is not a matter on which Party opinion ought in any way to divide the House. This is a matter in which we are all equally interested, and it is not a question of the Government coming to us and offering us concessions. We ought all of us to do everything in our power to preserve to those who follow us the beauties of the country that we have inherited, and I am bound to say that I regret that the Government have not thought fit to take the wider and stronger steps indicated by the noble Viscount. But it is no use talking about that, and it would be just as much out of order as speaking twice on the Report stage. As the matter stands, I do not think that anything more can be done. As the noble Viscount's Amendment has been defeated, I must accept the Amendment that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Desborough. I cannot help myself. I might, however, if the House will forgive me, suggest that, as there does still remain some considerable doubt about the earlier pail of the clause, it might be well if the Government would consider the effect of putting the words
382
"rural scenery" at the end of all the other words instead of at the beginning, because that would get rid of some doubt on the matter, and leave the clause quite as sensible as it is now. If they would think of that point before the Third Reading, it might remove a difficulty and I should be obliged to them.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to this suggestion. I did not myself make these observations on the last Amendment—they happen to be quite in order upon this one—because I was anxious to conform with the rules of order in your Lordships' House, and I am glad that, as the result of my strict rectitude in that matter, I have not incurred the censure of the noble Earl. I am in order on this Amendment in saying that the explanation given by the noble Lord in regard to the word "rural" is inconsistent with what he said on the Committee stage. He said one thing then and he has said another to-day. Really this matter ought to be cleared up, either in the manner that Lord Buckmaster has suggested—I have not considered it fully—or by the insertion of the Amendment indicated by the noble Lord opposite. One of those two things really ought to be done.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the view of the Government is that there is no ambiguity whatever on this point, but I think I can meet the wishes of noble Lords by saying that, unless we are fortified by the clear opinion of our draftsmen that there is no ambiguity—and I confess that this is my own view—then, on the Third Reading, we will deal with the matter in one or other of the ways suggested, so as to remove the last vestige of doubt.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I was going to suggest to the Government that all ambiguity as regards the application to rural places would be got rid of by inserting, after the first "or" in line 31 the words "of any." The clause would then read:—
"For the purpose of preserving the amenities of any rural scenery or of any place of beauty or historic interest.…"
and so on. I venture to suggest that this would make it quite clear that the word "rural" does not apply to places of

383
beauty or historic interest. The suggestion that Lord Buckmaster has made, that the words "rural scenery" should be put at the end, would meet the difficulty equally well, but perhaps my method would be just as simple.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: We will see to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move an Amendment?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I have stated that between now and the Third Reading the Government will consider this point for the purpose of making it perfectly plain.
LORD DANESFORT: In view of that assurance I do not move the Amendment that I had in mind.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move formally the second Amendment that stands in my name to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("for the enjoyment of the public") and insert ("or of any public park or pleasure promenade, or of any street or place which is of interest by reason of its picturesque character").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I beg to move, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out the words "design, colour and".
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("design, colour and").—(Viscount Ullswater.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), immediately before "Provided that," to insert "and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions any such by-laws regulating the appearance of petroleum filling stations may, in particular, require compliance with such provisions as may be contained in the by-laws as to the position, design, size, colour and screening of petroleum filling stations or of any parts thereof." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really an amplification. We had hoped that the word "by-laws" would cover the whole thing, but we have specified
384
certain points to which the attention of the councils should be particularly drawn. This also covers the question of colour and screening.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, these words go a very long way to meet the points I raised in Committee, and I am glad to agree to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that," to insert:—

"(i) as respects the City of London, the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this section shall be exercised and performed by the common council of the City of London instead of by the London County Council; and

(ii) no by-laws made under this section by the council of any county shall have effect in any borough within the county; and."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first paragraph is agreed as between the City of London and the London County Council and the second paragraph shows plainly that the county council and the borough council have their separate areas of authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (1), to leave out "made for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section" and to insert "regulating the appearance of petroleum filling stations." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely verbal.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 40 and 41, leave out ("made for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The next is another purely verbal Amendment to proviso (i) of subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("by-laws for the said purposes") and insert ("such by-laws").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (1), after "purposes," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "a Council shall not be entitled to require any alterations which would impose additional expense on the owner or occupied of a petroleum filling station established at the time of the making of the by-laws except on the condition that such expense shall be borne by the said council and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I told your Lordships I would endeavour to frame an Amendment which would guard the interests of those whose filling stations are liable to be interfered with. A large number of these so-called motor agents who own petrol pumps are small men who have invested their savings in this business, and if you call upon them to alter their pumps or garages I think it is only fair that they should have some compensation. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill does propose, I understand, to give compensation where a garage is removed
LORD DESBOROUGH: Or a pump.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: But not where it is only altered. I think that is a distinction without a real difference. In some cases the man may say: "All right, take my garage, or my pump, away altogether." But where the man has to make serious, and sometimes expensive, alterations I think he ought to be treated fairly. Hardly a word has been said on behalf of these small owners of garages all over the country, who, on the whole, however inartistic their pumps or buildings may be, are of great service to the users of the roads, more than 2,000,000 in number, who drive motor vehicles. May I mention a precedent for what I am asking the Government to do? Under Section 4 of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, the county council can impose restrictions on owners of land and houses when those owners have to alter the height or character of a house or of a wall which obstructs the view of the highway, and under Section 5 of that Act where a building line is prescribed the landlord can make a claim for compensation. It does not seem to me that there is much difference in principle between a man who has built a wall, making a blind corner, or who has allowed a hedge to grow, making a blind
386
corner, and a man who puts an unsightly building in a beautiful spot. He may have offended against good taste, but he has not broken the law.
These men have spent a considerable amount of money on their stations, and have done so in accordance with the law as it stands to-day, and it would be a great hardship if they were not fairly treated. Moreover, unless you make this Bill fair, and remove from it any chance of hardship to the smaller men, I think the county council will be very loath to compel them to make these alterations, because they are particularly exposed to the pressure of these small people, whom they try to encourage to take up these places, very often in connection with small holdings. The Government might put a limit of, say, £10 or so on the amount of compensation, but they ought to allow some compensation for alterations.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, after ("purposes") insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, my noble friend has pleaded the cause of the small pump owner with very great moderation and with much eloquence. But in my opinion his last argument tells rather against him. He says that in any case the county councils will be averse from calling upon these men to make alterations.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Where hardship occurs.
LORD DESBOROUGH: But I think they will be still more averse if they have to pay for the alterations. Under the Bill these pump owners will in most cases have to carry out rather trivial—or at any rate not very great—alterations, but if the alterations are of a structural character they are given two years in which to carry them out. I am afraid that, eloquently as the noble Lord has pleaded the cause of the pump owners, I cannot accept the principle that county councils and borough councils should pay the cost of carrying out these alterations.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BUCKMASTER(on behalf of Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (1), to leave out

387
"making of the by-laws"and insert "passing of this Act." The noble and learned Lord said: The noble Viscount Lord Cecil of Chelwood is unable to be here to-day, and has asked me—as I gladly do—to move this Amendment on his behalf. Its purpose is to prevent people establishing petrol stations between the date of the passing of the Act and the time when the by-laws may be passed. There is no reason whatever why you should give preferential treatment to people who have knowledge of the Act, and who put up these pumps before the by-laws are passed. Surely the right time is from the passing of the Act, not from the passing of the by-laws.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out ("making of the by-laws") and insert ("passing of this Act").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot accept this Amendment, as I think it would create great hardship if the time allowed to pump owners—two years—were to start from the passing of the Act, not from the passing of the by-laws. Probably a good many county councils will take considerable time in framing their by-laws after the passing of the Act, and these by-laws may also be altered in time. I think it would be rather hard on a man to deprive him of the proper time of grace, as you would do if this Amendment were carried. The time ought really to start on the passing of the by-laws, when everybody would know that it was an illegal thing to do.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (1), to leave out "for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section" and insert "prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations." The noble Lord said: This is a purely verbal Amendment and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of this section") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add to subsection (3): "The Secretary of State shall before confirming any by-law consider any objection to it which may be addressed to him by
388
persons affected or likely to be affected thereby." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that objections by the persons concerned shall be carefully considered by the Home Office; in other words, that there shall be an appeal. As far as I can make out there is no provision for this in the clause as drafted. A similar protection, I would remind your Lordships, was given in the Advertisements Regulation Act of 1907, Section 3, subsection (2), and it has always worked in a perfectly satisfactory manner. I suggest that the right of appeal to the Secretary of State is a very important concession and one that should be given, especially as there may be very hard cases. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to reassure your Lordships on the point, because I can assure him that there is great anxiety on the part of many thousands of people regarding it. I have had some very appealing letters pointing out that unless an easy and prompt right of appeal is given really great hardship may ensue. If the case is a just one no doubt the Secretary of State will confirm the order made by the local authority: but this provision gives some chance of appeal and I really think it ought to be inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, at end insert ("The Secretary of State shall before confirming any by-law consider any objection to it which may be addressed to him by persons affected or likely to be affected thereby").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope I shall be able to reassure my noble friend, but I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment. I am advised that it is unnecessary. It is the common practice in Statutes to empower local authorities to make by-laws and that provision has been inserted in this Bill. It has been an invariable practice, also, when these notices are issued to invite questions to be addressed and complaints to be made immediately on the spot to the Secretary of State. I can assure my noble friend that this practice, which is a common one, will certainly in this case be most religiously and scrupulously carried out.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: But I understand there is not the right of appeal.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Not exactly an appeal; but they can send in objections.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Lord has said I withdraw my Amendment, but I hope it is the fact that these people have some right of appeal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 41 to 43, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert the following new subsections:—
"(6) Where by-laws made under this section are in force prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations in any part of the area of a council, the council may, with a view to securing the removal of all such stations from that part of their area, serve upon every occupier of a petroleum filling station established therein before the date on which the by-laws came into force a notice requiring him to remove it within such period, not being less than six months after the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice, and Any such notice may be addressed to the "Occupier" without further name or description, and may be served either by delivering it or leaving it at, or by sending it by post as a registered letter to, the usual or last known place of abode of the occupier, or if his place of abode is not known, by fixing it on some conspicuous part of the petroleum filling station:
Provided that any person upon whom such a notice is served shall be entitled to recover from the council by whom it was served any expenses reasonably incurred by him in carrying out the directions contained in the notice, and shall, if he makes a claim within twelve months after the service of the notice, be entitled to recover from the council compensation for any loss sustained by him in direct consequence of the requirements of the notice, and any question in dispute as to whether compensation is payable under this subsection or as to the amount of any compensation so payable shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties or, in default of such agreement, appointed by the Secretary of State.
(7) The occupier of any premises used or intended to be used as a petroleum filling station shall have power, notwithstanding anything in any conveyance or in any lease or other agreement to do all such things as may be necessary for complying with the requirements of any by-law made or notice served under this section; and
390
where a notice has been served upon any person under this section the council by whom the notice was served may, with his consent, do on his behalf anything necessary for complying with the requirements of the notice."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this very long Amendment embodies the terms of compensation in the case of the removal of pumps and so on. In these cases compensation is given. It also describes how claims in addition to compensation can be made to the local authority for loss of time and money owing to the operation of by-laws. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, at end, insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this, no doubt, is an attempt to meet a request I made that there should be power to remove these offending pumps.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Hear, hear!
LORD BUCKMASTER: And I so accept it. But there is one thing that arises upon it which causes me some uncertainty. The noble and learned Earl has been kind enough to say that I am able judicially to decide the meaning of words.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Hear, hear!
LORD BUCKMASTER: Whether I am or not at least I do. But it does not by any means follow that the meaning I give to the words is the meaning that Parliament intended them to have. The real difficulty is to know what it is that Parliament means. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion when this matter was discussed there was a pleasant controversy between the noble Earl and myself as to whether two years in an earlier clause ought not to be, as I wanted it to be, six months or whether it should be twelve months, as I rather think the noble Earl in a benevolent mood thought would be right, or whether it should be eighteen months which was in fact what he offered. It has been left at two years. But this Amendment provides that a person shall be required to remove the offending obstruction in not less than six months after service of the notice. I am entirely in favour of that

391
six months. I want these things removed as quickly as possible. But I should like to point out that the six months here appears to me to create some difficulty in the light of the earlier provision which requires two years. The maintaining of the two years in the earlier clause is somewhat in breach of the understanding which was made in Committee between the noble Earl and myself. It had better perhaps be regulated by taking out the two years and leaving in the six months.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, if no compensation is given to the man who is compelled to alter his station clearly he ought to have two years because he has to go into some other trade. If he is given compensation there is something to be said for the noble and learned Lord's six months. If you are not going to give him compensation the least you can allow him, I think, is two years.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: There is only compensation in cases of removal, surely?
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think that is right; but I am not allowed to speak without the permission of their Lordships.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I asked the noble and learned Lord a question.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think that is right; it is two years for total removal. I am not carping at it at all. I want the matter made plain. If I cannot get what I desire I am prepared to accept twelve months, but I think six months is the right thing, and I would like six months left in this clause, and two years taken out of the other.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I do not think there is a very great deal of difference between us in this matter, and I think we might reach an accommodation by the noble and learned Lord for the first time making a graceful concession. We spend all our time making concessions, and we are now prepared to reach an accommodation upon that basis. If it is a question of total removal that raises one class of considerations. If it is a question of structural alterations it raises another. It seems to me that the Government, exhibiting a high judicial quality, has dealt with this matter in a spirit of accommodation
392
which I should have thought would have greatly endeared them to the noble and learned Lord. Once again I am very disappointed with him.
LORD BUCKMASTER: But it is confusion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (6), after "made" to insert "or notice served." The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, after ("made") insert ("or notice served").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The next Amendment is also consequential, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("by-law") to ("shall") in line 4, and insert ("or notice").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert, al the end of subsection (6):—
"and if, after any person has been so convicted in respect of a contravention of any by-law made under this section prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations or in respect of a contravention of any notice served under this section requiring the removal of any such station, the petroleum filling station is not removed within such time as the Court may allow, the council by whom the by-law was made or the notice served shall have power to do all such acts as may be necessary for the removal thereof, and any expenses so incurred by a council in removing any petroleum filling station established in contravention of any such by-law as aforesaid shall be recoverable from the person convicted summarily as a civil debt."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the necessary consequence of any by-laws prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations and any orders requiring the removal of such stations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (8), after "power," to insert "with the consent of the county council." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Com-

393
mittee stage of this Bill I suggested to the Government that it would be very undesirable to give any urban authority concurrent powers to enforce county council by-laws in the area of a county council without the consent of that council. I was speaking then without any knowledge of the view of the County Councils Association. I took the opportunity of ascertaining their views at a meeting a few days ago, and a motion was unanimously carried at that meeting that I should move the Amendment which now stands in my name on the paper, and which provides that an urban authority shall not enforce county council by-laws in its area without the consent, of the county council concerned. I do not think many of your Lordships would disagree when I say that it is rather an objectionable thing to lay down that by-laws made by a superior authority like a county council should be enforced by an inferior authority such as an urban district council. On the other hand, I am quite prepared to say on behalf of the County Councils Association that if the county councils did unreasonably not put in force the by-laws pressure would be brought to bear upon them. No doubt the Home Office would interfere and put pressure on the county councils as other Departments do, saying that the by-laws must be enforced.
If the county councils did not do that it would be necessary to see that something was done to make them do it. But to my mind this conflict of interests in regard to the by-laws only causes friction and trouble betwen the councils. It is remarkable that the Government should put a provision of this kind in the Bill considering that at the present moment there is a Commission sitting with the important object of seeing how friction between county councils and county boroughs can be removed. Moreover, the Government have announced their intention during the next Session of introducing a very great Local Government Bill which is to deal with enlarging the areas of the minor authorities and defining more clearly their separate powers in order to prevent overlapping of their powers and duties. No local authority has concurrent power in this matter. Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree to insert this Amendment. I can
394
assure you that consent will never be unreasonably withheld by a county council.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, after ("power") insert ("with the consent of the county council"). (Lord Strachie.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. There is a long history behind it which I do not propose to go over in detail, but I think there are certain matters converging on this Amendment of which the noble Lord who moved it probably has not full knowledge. The urban district councils have not been well treated under this Bill. The small boroughs can make the regulations, some with a population of only 1,500. On the other hand an urban district council with a population of 150,000 can do nothing under this Bill. As a matter of fact there are, I think, about 106 boroughs with a less population than 10,000, and somewhere about 260 urban district councils with a greater population than that. Therefore the urban district councils, looking at the main operation of the Bill, have not come out well. The Home Secretary in the last stage of this Bill in another place—for reasons I have before now detailed to your Lordships' House the matter could never be properly discussed there until the very last stage—was so much impressed with the case of the urban district councils that he said he would consider the matter, and as a result he gave what is really, so far as the Government are concerned, an undertaking that the urban district councils should have power to enforce within their districts any by-laws in force under this clause. He gave that undertaking subject to your Lordships' House. He cannot pledge what your Lordships' House would do, but he certainly pledged the Government. Therefore I cannot think the Government will be inclined to yield to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord.
Surely, in general, the urban district councils are the people to see that these by-laws are enforced. Very often an urban district council may be, in its area, 30 or 40 miles away from the county council, and the persons who would have the most interest in seeing these by-laws enforced are the persons who live on the

395
spot, the members of the urban district council. I think it is going a very long way, as the noble Lord apparently suggests, to deprive the urban district councils not only of the power of making any regulations but also of the humble duty of seeing that the regulations that are made are enforced. I should have thought that the county councils would have been grateful to the urban district councils for relieving them of a duty which is not easy for them to discharge. I hope the Government will stand firm.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot accept this Amendment. It is almost a matter of honour with the Government. I practically promised on the Second Reading of the Bill that this provision should be put in. As my noble friend opposite said, the urban district councils have not got very much and I think that to take away from them the power of enforcing the by-laws of a county council in their own area would be to add insult to injury. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment of my noble friend. I hope the borough councils will assist the county councils in enforcing their, no doubt, admirable by-laws.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I regret that the Government cannot see their way to meet the county councils in this matter. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that under this Bill an offender may be shot at by two different
authorities. I would much rather see the county councils and the urban district councils agreeing to enforce the bylaws than setting up their separate and different standards of enforcement under the by-laws. My own view has been that the county council is the most important authority concerned. It is important that the great lengths of road should, as roads, be treated uniformly in this matter. I am sure that the county councils would be only too glad to co-operate with the borough councils, but I do not think they should be asked to do so to the extent of having their powers exercised for them and without their consent by the urban councils. I do not know whether there is any hypothesis that county councils are either unwilling to take or incapable of taking proper action in regard to making and enforcing by-laws, but I certainly do not believe that there is adequate ground for that opinion, and I do not like the spectacle of the county council and urban district council engaging in a sort of tug of war over the poor victim in the matter of these by-laws. I regret very much that the Government cannot accept this Amendment and if my noble friend opposite goes to a Division I shall support him.
On Question, Whether the words proposed shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS.

Macclesfield, E.

Ampthill, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Malmesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Forester, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Lawrence, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Lovat, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Manners, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Merrivale, L.

Elibank, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Monkswell, L.

Sutherland, D.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Peel, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Airlie, E.

Ullswater, V.

Parmoor, L.

Ancaster, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Birkenhead, E.

Armstrong, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Arnold, L.

Queenborough, L.

Derby, E.

de Clifford, L.

Templemore, L.

Fortescue, E.

Desborough, L.

Wharton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wraxall, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Heneage, L.

Wyfold, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Jessel, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment of 34 & 35 Viet. c. 105 s. 15, as regards Scotland.
9. Section fifteen of the Petroleum Act, 1871, shall, in so far as it relates to Scotland, cease to have effect, and the following provisions shall apply to the prosecution of any offence or the recovery of any penalty (in which expression any money or expenses directed to be recovered as penalties are included) under the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1926, or under this Act in Scotland:—

(1) Any prosecution for an offence, or any proceedings for recovery of a penalty, may, where the offence involves a fine for every day on which the offence occurs or continues, or where the maximum penalty which may be imposed or awarded does not exceed fifty pounds, be brought in a court of summary jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, and any other offence and any other penalty may be prosecuted or recovered on conviction on indictment:

(2) The expression "court of summary jurisdiction" shall have the like meaning as in the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, provided that no court of summary jurisdiction, other than the Sheriff Court, shall have jurisdiction in any prosecution or proceedings where the maximum penalty which may be imposed or awarded exceeds twenty pounds:

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved to omit paragraph (1) and insert:—
"Any offence may be prosecuted in a court of summary jurisdiction or on indictment and any penalty shall be recoverable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction or on indictment, provided that no court of summary jurisdiction shall, except in the case of an offence which involves a fine for every day on which the offence occurs or continues, have power to impose a penalty exceeding fifty pounds and no court of summary jurisdiction other than the sheriff court shall have power to impose a penalty exceeding twenty pounds."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment which I move on behalf of the Scottish Office. The effect of the Amendment is to enable any offence to be prosecuted either on indictment or summarily, but to limit the penalty which may be imposed in the case of summary proceedings in the Sheriff Court to £50 and in the case of summary proceedings in any other Court to £20. The reason for the change is this. It may happen that an offence for which a larger sum than £50 may be imposed as a penalty is a technical one, and it would be desirable that there should be power to prosecute it summarily. The effect
398
will, therefore, be that prosecutions on indictment will be resorted to only in cases where the gravity of the offence justifies it, and that all cases where the offence is not sufficiently grave to justify indictment will be prosecuted summarily. The Amendment brings the procedure more into line with that which will exist in England.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, in paragraph (2), to leave out all words after "Acts." The noble Duke said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out from ("Acts") to end of line 22.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Minor Amendments]:
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, this Amendment to the First Schedule is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, after line 43, insert:—
("Section 12—After the word 'who,' in both places where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words, 'by himself or by anyone in his employ or acting by his direction or with his consent.'").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My next Amendment is practically only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, insert:—
("In the paragraph of Part I of the Schedule entitled 'Oil cup thermometer,' in the sub-paragraph relating to 'Immersion,' for the figure '2.25' there shall be substituted the figure '2.4.'").—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: The last Amendment is a verbal one.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("contravention") and insert ("offence").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I propose, with the consent of your Lordships,

399
to take the Third Reading of this Bill on Thursday next. That will leave, I think, sufficient time. As far as I know there is only one verbal Amendment foreshadowed to be made on Third Reading. Therefore, with your Lordships' consent, I propose to put the Bill down for Thursday next.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FOOD AND DRUGS (ADULTERA TION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to consolidate various enactments relating to the sale of food and drugs, which extend over a period of some fifty years. They include the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875, 1879, 1899 and 1927, and various other Acts. This is one of a series of consolidation measures undertaken by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, and as it includes no new measures or reform in the law dealing with this subject, but is merely a consolidation measure, I do not think it, necessary to say anything further. In the event of your Lordships giving a Second Reading to this Bill, it will naturally be referred to the Select Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this is, as the noble Viscount has said, a Consolidation Bill, and of course it follows that we must accept or reject it en bloc. But I do not think it is out of place for me to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that one of the matters dealt with in this Bill is a question that was raised nine years ago, when Lord Sandhurst promised that there should be a special and careful inquiry made by the Local Government Board for the purpose of seeing if further steps could not be taken to control the sale of proprietary medicines. This Bill as it stands provides that—
400
"No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, or not of the substance, or not of the quality, of the article demanded by the purchaser."
But this provision expressly exempts a food or drug that is—
"a proprietary medicine, or is the subject of a patent in force."
It will not, I think, be waste of time if I ask your Lordships' attention for a few moments to the position with regard to these patent medicines. They were the subject of an elaborate investigation by a Select Committee that was set up in 1912 and reported in 1914.
Their Report was one of the most formidable condemnations of the whole traffic in these articles that it is possible to imagine. They found that many of the goods were distinctly fraudulent and that many of the medicines were being sold under false names for the special purpose of producing abortion. They found that it was almost impossible to get the matter properly and publicly discussed in the Courts, because the amount of money spent by these people in advertisements was so great that you could not possibly get any investigation or disclosure reported in the Press. They referred to a case where one of the commonest of all these remedies was declared to be grossly fraudulent, and the matter went by without being noticed at all. The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, and I were very much concerned about this, and on a former opportunity we called the attention of the Government to the fact that in the public interest these proprietary medicines, above all other things, needed control. This is one of the few countries where they are not controlled. In France no person can sell a proprietary medicine without having every one of the ingredients plainly stated upon the face of the bottle or box. Here there is nothing of the kind. What happens, of course, is that these medicines are sold to poor, ignorant persons by statements that are often deliberately false, and frequently the drug sold is itself positively deleterious and dangerous and ought not to be taken. There is no protection whatever.
When we turn to this Bill, we find that we are positively to exempt these medicines from penalties applicable to

401
anything else, and I think it is time to call the Government's attention to the fact that nine years ago it was promised that this matter should be looked into, and that nothing has been done. I should like to quote what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Sandhurst, on the Committee stage of the Ministry of Health Bill in this House on May 8, 1919, and also by Lord Bledisloe, who, as your Lordships will all agree, is not in the habit of using violent, extravagant or (I had almost said) exciting language. Lord Bledisloe said on that occasion:—
"This Report is the most damning Report ever made by any Select Committee of either House. It discloses a network of fraud and deliberate crime against the physical well-being of the nation which in my judgment is unparalleled in any other civilised country."
After having listened to the evidence brought from other countries, Lord Bledisloe thought fit to make these remarks. I am at a loss to think what kind of language I should have used if I had been describing the same thing.
Those are the moderate terms that he used, and this is what Lord Sandhurst said in reply:—
"Perhaps I may, on behalf of the President of the Local Government Board, give this pledge and undertaking, that the President will, in view of the Report from which the quotations have been made, consider without delay the whole problem; and, secondly, that he will also as soon as possible make proposals to Parliament for whatever new powers are needed to bring about the necessary action."
Your Lordships will not think it surprising that, when I find that nine years have gone by and nothing has been done and when, on the face of a Bill that we must pass as a Consolidation Bill, I find the preservation of special privileges in favour of the very thing that it was promised to investigate and which, in the interests of the national health, ought to be carefully investigated, I should think fit to call your Lordships' attention to this point and to ask the noble Marquess to use his very great influence to secure that at last we may do something to remove what, in my humble judgment, is both a public danger and a public disgrace.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not, of course, make any complaint whatever of the noble and
402
learned Lord having taken this perfectly fair opportunity of calling attention to the subject to which he has referred. I do not pretend for a moment that I know anything at all about the point to which he has called attention, except that the matter was attempted to be dealt with during these long years but that, for some reason or other, the attempt broke down in the course of the passage through Parliament of a measure which, I believe, was called the Proprietary Medicines Bill. I know nothing more about it. If the noble and learned Lord is accurate in what he said, and I am quite certain that he intends to be accurate, he has doubtless made out a very strong case for something being done. But he has reminded your Lordships, and I should like to emphasise the point again, that it would be entirely contrary to the practice of the House to put an Amendment into a Consolidation Bill. Our practice is, I believe, much more rigid than that which prevails in another place. We have established it over a long course of years, with absolutely no exception that, when we are passing a Consolidation Bill we do not amend the law. If we once begin to amend the law, the process of consolidation is thrown over and we can discuss every one of the issues raised, making it perfectly impossible to pass such Bills into law.
Consequently we pursue one uniform practice: we carry the Second Reading, and we refer the Consolidation Bill to the Committee presided over by my noble friend opposite (Lord Muir Mackenzie). The Committee goes through the Bill in order to see that it is what it purports to be—namely, nothing but a Consolidation Bill—and if it prove to be so, they report accordingly to the House and the Bill goes through as an uncontroversial measure. I am sure that your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord himself would not wish to vary this practice, which is very important from the point of view of legislation. As for the specific matter to which he has taken this opportunity of drawing attention, I am quite certain that my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Health in this House will report what has passed to his chief. I make no promise, but if it prove that the attitude taken

403
by the noble and learned Lord is justified and that there is a great mischief—whether it is nine years old or nine months old makes very little difference—of course the Government will consider what can be done to remedy it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.