Lords Sitting of 10 May 1928

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

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision for the reorganisation of educational and other endowments in Scotland; 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.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA- TION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Glossop, Guildford, Leeds, Milford Haven, South Staffordshire Joint Small-Pox Hospital District, and Woolwich; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COCKERMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1928.

  BIRMINGHAM GAS ORDER, 1928.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
  Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 19th of April last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (HALIFAX AND WEST RIDING PROVISIONAL ORDERS) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWINDON EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EALING EXTENSION) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON EXTENSION) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DESBOROUOGH: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. This Bill has become necessary because the time has arrived when the various Acts dealing with petroleum should be consolidated. A Consolidation Bill has been prepared and will in due course be submitted to your Lordships. The main Act relating to petroleum is
  1082
  obsolete and in many cases very difficult of interpretation. Therefore the Government thought it best to amend the existing Acts and then to pass a consolidation measure. The first Act dealing with petroleum was that, of 1871, and this was modified by the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and further by the Petroleum Act, 1926. After the necessary amendments have been introduced into the various Acts it is proposed to consolidate them for the convenience of the public and the better administration of the law. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into the various small amendments, important as they are, that are made by the various clauses of this Bill. Clause 1, for instance, refers to harbours, which is rather a complicated matter and difficult of interpretation, and I do not think that I need weary your Lordships by going into details.
  The two clauses of the Bill which will probably be most interesting to the House on the second Reading are Clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 in effect deals with tetra-ethyl, a subject upon which your Lordships have already expressed some opinions, and Clause 5 deals with the unsightly nature of many of the filling stations that now adorn the country. Your Lordships are aware that my noble friend Lord Buckmaster introduced the matter of tetra-ethyl to the House and a Committee has been set up to inquire into the whole subject. It is impossible for me in any way to forestall the findings of that Committee, but it must be obvious to your Lordships that it is necessary to take some immediate steps so as to enforce if necessary those findings in a matter which may be of importance to the health of our people.
  Accordingly, the Secretary of State, under this Bill, if he is—
  "satisfied that any class of petroleum-spirit is, by reason of the nature thereof or of any substance mixed therewith, likely to be dangerous or injurious to health either generally or in the case of any class of persons,—
  that would be those who are bound to use it, such as the employees of garages—
  "… may make such Regulations as appear to him to be reasonably practicable and to meet the necessity of the case …"
  The Bill goes on to provide for the issue of Regulations—
  "for the protection of persons employed or engaged in handling or using petroleum-spirit

  1083
  of that class in connection with any trade or business."
  That is a precautionary measure. The following subsection requires—
  "persons selling to the public petroleum-spirit of that class to give … warning to purchasers … as to the dangers thereof and the precautions to be observed with respect thereto."
  The Minister further takes powers to prohibit absolutely
  "the sale or use of petroleum-spirit which he may by order declare to be so dangerous or injurious to health …"
  and so on. Powers are also taken for publication of the Regulations and for the enforcement of any penalties to which people may become liable under the Bill, the penalties ranging from a fine not exceeding £20 a day to various smaller penalties. That is the clause which deals with tetra-ethyl. I am sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Buck-master is not in his place as I should have liked to have his comments on the proposals of the Government under this head.
  The next point to which I might on Second Reading draw the attention of your Lordships concerns the filling stations and the very unsightly pumps to which your attention has been drawn. A rather difficult question arises as to who shall be the adjudicator in this æsthetic matter. There is a very widespread feeling throughout the country that some steps should be taken immediately to deal with an evil that is growing and that is very offensive to a large number of His Majesty's subjects. The countryside is at present disfigured not only by these pumps, but also by advertisements used in connection with the pumps, and under the heading "pumps" these advertisements are included. Certain county councils have already made representations to the Government, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read an extract from a letter from the Surrey County Council which, I think, sets out clearly the feeling of a great many councils on this matter.
  It is as follows:
  "The council, in view of the regrettably rapid increase in the number of petrol and oil supply stations throughout the country, are strongly of opinion that their efforts to preserve the beauty of the countryside will be nullified to a large extent unless some
  1084
  action is taken to regulate the design and elevation of such stations. In their opinion the majority of these stations, with their multi-coloured petrol pumps and oil tanks, are quite as disfiguring as many of the advertisements hoardings that have been condemned. On the other hand, the council have observed certain supply stations within the County area where all the apparatus is painted in one uniform tint, either grey or white, with the result that such stations are by no means as unsightly as those referred to above."
  The object of this letter would certainly command a good deal of public support, but the difficulty that now arises is as to the most practical way of attaining it. The suggestion has been made that the matter should be dealt with by Regulations in regard to the location of these pumps and their design and elevation, and that such Regulations should be made by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of Health. There are obviously a good many objections to both of those suggestions. It will be very difficult to do anything effective in a matter of this kind from Whitehall. Indeed, after the remarks made by the Lord Chancellor at the Academy dinner the other day, my confidence in the æsthetic powers of Whitehall has been very much diminished. Regulations could, of course, be made as to colour and screening and one or two other points, but it would be very difficult for the Government to draw up any general Regulations dealing with all these pumps, and they have no staff of officials for carrying them out.
  The alternative seems rather to be that some local authority should be given powers to deal with this matter and to take into consideration the conditions of the locality and also the convenience of the public. Accordingly the Government, after having considered this matter carefully and having considered also the debates in another place, have come to the conclusion that the most suitable authority to deal with this matter would be the county and borough councils. These are the authorities for making by-laws for the good order of their localities and it is proposed to give them specific powers to make by-laws on the subject. Clause 5, to which I have referred, has been drawn with this object in view. It is proposed to give county and borough councils powers to regulate the design and appearance of petroleum filling stations in their area and also to exclude them, subject to

  1085
  certain conditions set out in proviso (ii)—namely, they must 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. And it is possible that a committee should be appointed to consider the whole subject and see what could best be done to meet the necessities of the situation.
  The provisos in subsection 1 are somewhat important. It would be a convenience if some authority could make suggestions as to some sort of standard pump. It would be a great convenience to the makers and suppliers of pumps, and different requirements could be laid down by local authorities for different areas. This is effected by the first proviso. It may be noticed in this connection that "filling stations" are defined to include advertisements displayed at such stations. This is a matter which calls for attention at the earliest possible moment before further mischief is done. While this matter was being considered in another place a deputation was received from the urban district councils and, several letters have also been received on this matter. They claimed, and claimed I think with justice, that, their local interest being so great, they should have some voice in this matter and that the power to make these by-laws should also, be extended to them. This point is really, I suppose, a Committee point, but so far as the Government are concerned they are very anxious to meet as far as possible the urban district councils and in Committee it is proposed to introduce an Amendment which I hope will go some way to meet the requirements of these bodies. It was urged that the Government should take immediate steps to remove objectionable pumps. This, again, is a Committee point, and I am prepared on behalf of the Government to give this matter the fullest consideration before the Committee stage.
  Those are the principal matters of interest in the Bill, though the rest of it is also very important. There is one matter which I may mention, covered by Clause 6, which relates to canals. Your Lordships may be aware that there has been certainly one very bad accident on a canal attended unfortunately with fatal results, and it is proposed in this Bill to give canal companies power to make
  1086
  by-laws for the purpose of safeguarding the public when petroleum is being carried on canals. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
  LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks on this Bill to matters arising out of Clause 5. That clause deals with petroleum filling stations or, as they are perhaps more shortly termed, petrol pumps. I think there will be general agreement with the object aimed at, which is to prevent the disfigurement of the country side and places of beauty or of historic interest by petrol pumps. But a position of some importance arose in regard to this matter, and I should like to make a statement about it, for I think it is desirable that the whole of the facts should be on record. It will be necessary for me to make some reference to happenings in another place, but I am not unmindful of the objection in your Lordships' House to that being done to any large degree, and I trust I shall not transgress. I merely wish to make the position plain.
  When the Bill was first introduced there was no provision in it at all for dealing with petrol pumps, but on the Second Reading in another place it was suggested that this was a good opportunity to do something in that regard, and accordingly, at a somewhat late stage, the rather unusual course was taken of moving an Instruction to the Committee, asking them to insert a clause empowering local authorities to make by-laws with regard to petrol pumps in their areas. There is no objection to that. I think we are all in agreement about the object aimed at. But unfortunately, whereas this Instruction was moved on a Monday, a new clause was moved the next morning and was inserted by the Committee before 12 o'clock. There was practically no opportunity for the urban district councils, which are very seriously affected by the present form of the clause, to make any representations and, owing to certain rules of order, when the matter came up later in another place it was held that, this having been inserted under an Instruction, no further Amendment could be made. Under Clause 5 however, as inserted by the Committee, the term "local authority" is confined either to a county council or a borough it does not include an urban district council.

  1087
  It is true that under this clause Regulations made by a county council will apply to the whole area and, provided Regulations are made, will include the urban district councils in that area. But that is not, I think, by any means entirely satisfactory, and I shall have something to say about the operation of that in a moment or two.
  In the meanwhile the point I want to stress is that it is a very anomalous thing to give these powers for making by-laws with regard to petrol pumps to county councils and borough councils and not to urban district councils, because some of the boroughs are very small indeed. I will give two or three examples. You have in Glamorganshire the Borough Council of Cowbridge with a population of 1,147, but in that County you have the urban district of Rhondda with a population of 167,900. Cowbridge under this clause can make by-laws with regard to petrol pumps, Rhondda cannot do so. Take Kent. In Kent, New Romsey is a borough with a population of 1,605, but in Kent there is a very important urban district of Beckenham, an extremely favoured residential district, with a population of 33,500, but that urban district cannot make Regulations. Take Essex. Saffron Walden is a small borough with a population of 5,876. Walthamstow, an urban district in Essex, has a population of 127,000. As a matter of fact, altogether there are 106 non-county boroughs with populations of fewer than 10,000 people, and 65 of them have populations under 5,000 On the other hand there are no fewer than 261 urban districts with populations of more than 10,000. It therefore does seem a very strange differentiation to make between these various kinds of local authorities, and that, I think, is all the more true because in matters of town planning, streets and buildings, and so forth, the urban district council is the local authority for dealing with such matters. I would submit that this question of petrol pumps is very analogous to matters of that kind, and indeed it has been held that a petrol pump is an erection under a certain section of the Housing and Town Planning Acts. Therefore I think it very difficult for the Government to defend this differentiation.
  Consider also this point. The members of urban district councils obviously have
  1088
  much more local knowledge and local interest than the members of the county council. Further, only one county councillor at the most will live in au urban district, whereas the members of the urban district council, I suppose, all live there, all have special interests in its amenities, and all would watch everything much more closely than would be possible for county council officials, and certainly possible for county council members. It has been suggested, I know, that this differentiation should be made because certain small boroughs have features of beauty and of historical interest and therefore should have these powers to defend these places. If that argument is going to be used in the case of borough councils, it can be employed also with regard to urban district councils. Eton is a place well known to many of your Lordships. Eton has an urban district council. Then such places as Lynton, Ilfracombe and Windermere, all have urban district councils, and therefore there is nothing in this differentiation, if it is to be alleged that these powers should be given for the purpose of preserving places of beauty or historical interest.
  I could understand it if it had been said that in order not to have too many authorities the powers should not be given to any councils with a population below, say, 10,000. That would be an intelligible proceeding, but the differentiation in the Bill is not, I think, based upon any scientific or defensible principle. It will be said, I know, that you must, if possible, have uniformity; that between London and Brighton, for example, there are only two county councils, whereas there are a number of urban district councils, and so you might have many different kinds of by-laws relating to this matter; but that contention cannot be sustained because these by-laws, it is to be presumed, will be made upon the plan of model by-laws supplied from the Home Office, and under Clause 5 subsection (3) the Secretary of State has power to disapprove of by-laws if he does not like them, and therefore has absolute control in his own hands. Therefore, I do not think any argument of substance can be made with regard to this question of lack of uniformity or variety. Uniformity could, and would, be obtained even if the urban district councils had this power.

  1089
  May I put a point which I think is one of some substance? I notice that there have been certain measures introduced by the Government which have not been helpful to the minor local authorities. The urban district councils have, on the whole, proved themselves to be useful and well-working bodies, though there is very little inducement to serve upon them. The prestige is not high, the pay is nothing, the work is very hard, in many cases involving, as some of your Lordships may know, late sittings night after night, and I suggest that it is not very encouraging to persons of standing to come forward and sit upon these urban district councils if their powers are to be limited in a matter like this. The power to make Regulations is taken away from them, and yet it is given to a borough which may be only one-fiftieth of the size of an urban district in the same county. I think there is a strong case in a matter like this for considering very sympathetically the claims of the urban district councils.
  In fact, the Home Secretary, I think, was greatly impressed by the case which I have been venturing to adumbrate, and he said he would consider the matter. He has considered the matter and is prepared to go, in the course of the Committee stage, a certain distance to meet the point, although not so far as we who take the opposite view would like him to go. He is going to insert an Amendment, as I understand it, not to include urban district councils as the authority, but to enact that any urban district council shall have power to enforce the by-laws within its district, if made by the county council, and any expense incurred in the matter is to be defrayed as part of the general expenses. I should like to thank the Government for their intention, so far as it goes, but I should have been glad if they could have gone a little further and included urban district councils as the authorities for making these Regulations.
  As a matter of fact, this is the first time that there has been differentiation, in any Act of Parliament, between an urban district council and a borough since, I think, 1907, except in the case of the Shop Hours Act of 1912, which was in a somewhat special category—it was really a consolidating Act, continuing old legislation and not enacting new legislation.
  1090
  Not only is that so, but in the principal Act of 1871 it is laid down that urban district councils, as well as borough councils, are to be the local authorities, and I think that makes it all the more extraordinary that in this further Bill you should make this entirely exceptional differentiation under Clause 5.
  My final point is this. I have explained that if a county council makes by-laws they will apply to the district councils in that area; but what is going to happen if the county council does not make by-laws? There is nothing in this clause to compel the county council to make by-laws, and there is no power, so far as I know, to compel them to do so. This point has been submitted to the Government, and the Home Secretary, I understand, has stated that if he receives an intimation from any district council that the county council have failed to make bylaws, and the district council urgently desires that they should be made, he will at once take up the matter with the county council, and though he has not power to compel them to make by-laws, he has every reason to believe that the matter would be considered favourably by most county councils. I was hoping that that statement would be made by the noble Lord on the Second Reading, because that seemed to be an appropriate occasion for doing so. He has not made that statement, and therefore I draw attention to the fact and put on record what I understand the Home Secretary has undertaken to do.
  There is, however, a gap, because, although I hope that this expectation on the part of the Home Secretary will prove to be well-based, there may be county councils who for some reason or other do not make by-laws, and then the position will be unsatisfactory. If that happens in any number of cases I think something will have to be done, and further legislation probably will be required to deal with the situation. What I want to make clear is this, that so far as the urban district councils are concerned the view is taken very strongly that this Bill must not be allowed to establish a precedent, so as to break through what has been the rule ever since 1907. It is very strongly urged that the Bill should not be taken as a precedent in any way to the detriment of the urban district councils, and in order that this

  1091
  position might be fully safeguarded I could have strongly wished that the Government had put the urban district councils into Clause 5.
  There is only one other point which occurred to me when looking through the Bill shortly before I rose. I should like to put the point, and perhaps the noble Lord will consider it. The words of Clause 5 are these:
  "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—"
  and so forth. Looking closely at those words they seem to confine the operations of this Bill to the amenities of rural scenery or places of beauty or of historic interest. That would seem, if I read it aright, to rule out from the operation of the Bill a borough which may have some very good districts and may be wishful to prevent disfigurement but which cannot plead, of course, that it has rural scenery, because obviously it has not. At any rate, generally speaking, that plea could not be advanced, and also it might not have what would be called a place of beauty nor one of historic interest.
  If that is the interpretation of this clause, does this Bill mean that a council could not make by-laws? Take, for instance, Bromley, which is near to Beckenham and, I believe, in many ways is very similar to it. Does it mean that Bromley could not make by-laws because it might be difficult to bring the particular situation there within the ambit of the clause? I would ask the noble Lord if he would be good enough to look into that matter between now and the Committee stage, because it happens from time to time, as your Lordships are aware, that a Bill is passed and then subsequently it is found that a little loophole has been left which was not noticed at the time of its passage. I do not wish to be dogmatic upon this particular point which only occurred to me a few moments ago; but it seems to me that the clause is not sufficiently comprehensive, and that the Government might possibly see their way to introduce an Amendment which would make the matter clear. I do not desire to trespass further upon your Lordships' time in making this statement, if I may so call it, but I wanted to place before your Lordships the view that this Bill should
  1092
  not in any way be regarded as a precedent to the detriment of urban district councils.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I have no desire to oppose this Bill, but I would like to say that unless I am satisfied that the right of appeal for those who have existing stations is safeguarded I shall be inclined to put down an. Amendment on the point. I understand that an appeal to the Home Secretary does exist. I have found the present stations very useful. A large number of them are run by ex-Service men who have put into them all that they have in the world. I am sure that your Lordships' House does not wish to do them any injustice. As I say, I do not wish to oppose the Bill; indeed, with many of its provisions I am entirely in accord.
  LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, I should like in regard to Clause 5 to call attention to the fact, as the noble Lord opposite has done, that it is permissive. I rather hope that the Government may see their way to give some power to the Minister of Health to see that it is carried out. There are two Acts which deal with advertisements and which are very analogous to the present Bill. The first of them gives power to the local authority to make by-laws with regard to restricting advertisements and the second Act, which was passed in 1925 I believe, gives increased powers. A substantial number of county councils have not availed themselves of the second Act, and a quite substantial number have not availed themselves of either Act, and I rather fear that may be the case with this Bill if it becomes law.
  LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to the remarks of my noble friend opposite respecting the urban district councils, I think I can say in justice to the Home Secretary that he is very much impressed with the case put forward while the Bill was under discussion in another place. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I did not wish to go into any details or to discuss Amendments which had not been moved; but I did undertake that when the Bill came into Committee an Amendment would be moved, and I hope that we shall have the assistance of my noble friend opposite and of other noble Lords in discussing that Amendment. As to the suggestion

  1093
  made by my noble friend behind me, if any local authority wishes to put the power into operation two years must be allowed and, if there is to be power to remove existing stations, the question of compensation would then have to be thoroughly gone into. In regard to painting the pumps white instead of yellow, I do not know that personally I should feel much more inclined to get oil from it on that account.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee put off to Wednesday next.

  RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee has made recently a Report to the Minister of Transport in regard to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Road Transport Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway Road Transport Bill, the Southern Railway Road Transport Bill, the Metropolitan Railway Road Transport Bill, or any of them, what were the chief recommendations of such Report, and whether he proposes to publish it for the information of Parliament, and to place it before the Joint Select Committee at present considering these Bills; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject raised in the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper is one of some considerable importance. We all know that a Joint Select Committee is sitting upstairs to consider a group of Bills promoted by certain railway companies for the purpose of extending their road powers. To that on general principles I have, as I have said in your Lordships' House before, no objection. But it is
  1094
  very important that the Joint Select Committee should have before it all possible information. In addition to that, when the Bills come down to your Lordships' House from that Committee, it is important that members of your Lordships' House should also have every possible means of knowing the facts of the case and the opinion of the Committee. A question was asked in another place on May 3 whether the Minister of Transport was willing to lay on the Table a White Paper containing the Report of a certain Statutory Committee which had been made to the Ministry of Transport. The reply of the Minister of Transport was that it was not usual to publish Reports relating to Private Bills. That, I think, is a weak answer. One can hardly describe as Private Bills measures which affect the public and the future of the transport in this country very largely. They are not in the nature of ordinary Private Bills. That is shown by the fact that the Joint Committee, which is a somewhat unusual Committee, is sitting not only for the purpose of saving time but because of the great importance of the subject with which it has to deal. The Minister of Transport, in his reply, went on to say that the responsibility of tendering advice to such Committees must rest with the Minister and the Minister alone. That is a very good rotund Parliamentary phrase and represents the official view. But, as I have said, this particular Committee is not an ordinary Committee, and is not like a Departmental Committee.
  Your Lordships will recollect that in 1924 the London Traffic Act was passed. Under that Act the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was set up, representing all kinds of authorities, official and unofficial, certain counties and various interests which were involved. It was, in fact, practically the same as a Statutory Committee, which has certain obligations and certain powers. So important were the Reports of that Committee thought to be that in Section 1 there is a stipulation that the Annual Report of the Committee shall be laid on the Table of Parliament. That Report, I believe, has been laid every year and has been read with great interest. In regard to the Report which was recently made on these Railway Bills, I understand that the

  1095
  Minister is disinclined to publish it, and unless the Advisory Committee publishes it—which, I assume, it is in their power to do—
  VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Lord will allow me to correct him, that is not the fact. They have no power whatever to publish their Report.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I had better read the actual words of the Act:—
  "The Advisory Committee shall make an Annual Report of their proceedings to the Minister, which shall be laid before Parliament."
  The Minister may, of course, edit it and cut out those portions of the Report of which he does not approve, but there is a statutory obligation made upon the Committee, as I have pointed out, to make an Annual Report.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Lord wishes me to deal with that I will do so. That, of course, is an Annual Report and it is laid down that that Report should be laid upon the Table, but it has to be done through the Minister. That applies to that Annual Report alone, but does not apply to any other Report. Certainly it does not apply to any Report made by the Statutory Committee.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I think the noble Viscount misunderstood me. I said if they chose to incorporate in their Annual Report the words of this Report or the gist of the Report recently made, they could do so, and that, unless the Minister chose to suppress it, it would become public property. That is all I said and I think that it is perfectly correct.
  EARL RUSSELL: That is quite correct, but it would not become public property now. It would not become public property until the Annual Report is presented and then it would not be of much consequence.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I agree, but I say that the Minister would not delay an Annual Report unless he had strong reasons for doing so. This Report is, in the opinion of those who have seen it, a very important one. The reason for suppressing it is, of course, not known, but we may guess at it. I cannot personally conceive why it should
  1096
  not, at any rate, be produced to the Select Committee. It seems to me that even if it is not made public it should be produced to the Committee. The Committee have power, I understand, as have all Committees of this kind, to insist on the production of the Report, and if they chose to treat that Report as a confidential document they could do so. The noble Viscount who presides so ably over that Committee has a perfect right to say: "This is a private document. We want to see it for our own edification. We shall use it for our own purposes, but we shall not disclose it to the general public." No doubt the noble Viscount will make some remarks about that later on. The question of this Report raises some rather important matters. Why has this Report been, so to speak, suppressed? Is it because it does not coincide with the Departmental view? Is it because the Minister of Transport has formed different views from those contained in it? We can only guess at that, but in view of the somewhat widespread allegations all over the country of anti-road bias, because of the recent action of the Government in regard to the Petrol Tax, it is, I think, important that this Report should at any rate be produced to the Committee.
  If that were done there would be no real reason for further suspicion on this point. If the Government decline to produce the Report even to the Committee, or to make it public, we can only conclude there is something in it which it is desired should not be known and which is of some considerable importance. The history of the Report itself is somewhat remarkable. When the London and Home Counties Committee originally reported they were asked, I understand, by the Ministry of Transport to reconsider their decision and to re-write or report again in a different sense. That, in itself, is interesting, to say the least of it. Was that because the first Report, as I say again, did not coincide with the Minister's view? I am informed that the Committee did to a certain extent re-write their Report, that certain recommendations were slightly altered, but that the main recommendations stood and that those responsible for the Report refused to alter them. The Committee apparently had the courage to do that, and of course it naturally produced a certain amount of comment amongst those who knew. That

  1097
  may be another reason why this Report has been suppressed, but it is rather interesting to note that in the typewritten paper which, I believe, has been put into the hands of the noble Viscount's Committee, which contains the recommendations of the Report of the Minister of Transport, there is a reference on page 9 to one of those recommendations of the Committee, so that he evidently has in corporated some of them, though not all.
  The Minister suggests these words:—
  "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions"—
  these are the provisions of the London Traffic Act, 1924—
  "nothing in this Act shall affect the powers under the London Traffic Act, 1924, or any Act amending the same of the Minister of Transport…"
  That is a very sensible suggestion and that is one of the results of the original Report of the Committee, but I see no reference to the other point. It would take too long to go into the details of the Report to-day. Take, for instance, the point in regard to the inadequacy of the road to carry increased traffic and matters of that kind. There is no reference in the Minister of Transport's Report to the Committee at all about them.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord is making certain references to a Report. I do not know what Report it is that he is referring to.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: This Report was made, I think, to the noble Viscount—a Report by the Minister of Transport.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, the Minister of Transport, whose Report, it was said, did not contain certain points which were in some other Report.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That is the Report I am talking of—the Report of the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord is referring apparently to some other document which I understand is an official document—a Report made by the London Traffic Advisory Committee to the Minister. That is an official document and I do not understand quite by what right or claim the noble Lord professes to have got a copy of this official document, and
  1098
  to be giving portions of it to your Lordships' House. I submit he is not entitled to do anything of the kind.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I assume that every thing that can throw light on the subject of the debate in this House or the proceedings in Committee is in order. I am afraid I cannot take it as being an obligation on myself not to refer to something which is known to a great many people at the present time and is freely talked about.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sorry to interrupt. What I understand the noble Lord is doing is, that in some of those sentences which he has just used he is quoting from a Report made by the Advisory Committee the Minister, which the Minister, in the course of his discretion, has to consider. That is a private Report. I do not understand how, first of all, the noble Lord has it at all, but if by some means he has got it into his possession, I submit he is not entitled to disclose openly to your Lordships a Report made to the Minister which the Minister has to consider in his discretion. It is not before your Lordships. It is not, on the Table. It is not a public document, and I the noble Lord has no right to refer to any such document.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's homily on that point. I was only quoting two points. One that I quoted is referred to in the document that I hold in my hand, which is public property. The other I referred to because of the question of the adequacy of the roads. I am not going to give the House all the details of that Report. I have told the noble Viscount I should not do so. But one of these two points is referred to in a document which is available to everyone. The other point is one of such importance that at any rate the Committee upstairs should know about it. I suggest to the Government that the appropriate way of dealing with this matter, which is a matter of great public interest, is that they should consent to place before the Committee this Report. Whether they choose to publish it at a later date is a matter, I should think, for future discussion. It does seem to me that a Committee of this sort, sitting as they are to consider the whole subject,

  1099
  ject, should have all the information at their disposal. If the Government do not choose to do it we shall be able to draw our own conclusions.
  I am sorry if the noble Viscount thinks I have done anything that is not correct in the Parliamentary sense, but if it cases his mind I may say I have not got a copy of the Report. I could get a copy, I have no doubt, quite easily, but if it eases his mind I will say I have not got a copy. If I had I should have to consider whether I was justified in reading that Report, at any rate in extenso. I do think, however, that the Government should produce this Report to the Committee even if it is done in a quite private way.
  VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I happen to be Chairman of the Joint Select Committee which is sitting upon these Railway Bills, and when I saw my noble friend's Question on the Paper I asked the members of the Committee to consider the attitude which they wished to take up with regard to it. I cross-examined learned Counsel on both sides this afternoon to find out what, in their view, was the exact position of this Advisory Committee. It was agreed that the position was that this Committee reported to the Minister of Transport, that their Reports are private Reports made to the Minister of Transport, and that it is within his discretion to say "Yes" or "No" whether he will publish them. There is only one exception to this—namely, that to which the noble Viscount opposite referred just now, that the Annual Report is to be published, but to be published by the Minister of Transport. In those circumstances, and inasmuch as the Minister of Transport had made his final Departmental Report to the Committee, we felt that we had no right to ask him to vary his discretion in this matter, and we do not propose to ask him to send this Report to us.
  But—I say this most emphatically—we should very strongly object as a Committee to having this Report sent to us privately, because if a Report comes to us it ought also to be in the hands of the parties to the Bill so that they may know exactly the effect of that Report. It would not be right that we, as a Committee, should be sitting in camera considering a confidential Report to which they have not had access. That is what
  1100
  my Committee asked me to say this afternoon, and it must be a matter entirely for the Minister of Transport, who is here represented by the noble Viscount opposite, as to what course he will take in this matter.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I think the question which has been asked by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu is very present to the minds of your Lordships, and I need not read it again. A Report was made by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to the Minister of Transport in regard to these Railway Bills to which the noble Lord has referred, and the Report contained references, of course, to certain matters germane to the questions which are being considered by the Joint Select Committee upstairs. Of course, a Report from so important a body as the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was taken Into consideration by the Minister of Transport in his Report to the Committee on the Bill, with, of course, other Reports and recommendations on other important subjects which he has received from public authorities and from representatives of important interests. In his Report to the Committee, of course, the Minister has endeavoured to assist the Committee to the best of his ability by certain advice on all the points to which, in his view, he could usefully and reasonably call their attention.
  If the noble Lord thinks that the unusual course should be followed of attaching to this Report copies of all the important Reports—I was going to say Reports important or otherwise—on which the judgment of the Minister was formed, I am afraid I cannot follow him on that particular point. All these Bills were referred, as your Lordships well know, with the concurrence of your Lordships' House to a strong Committee of both Houses of Parliament. There need be no fear whatever that this Committee, before whom are appearing parties represented on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, will fail to give proper consideration to all the relevant circumstances affecting London and other parts of the country. It is hardly necessary to say that if the Committee should ask for any information or assistance from the Ministry of Transport, or any other Government Department, every

  1101
  effort will be made to comply with their wishes. But while the Committee are sitting upstairs, I am bound to say I think it would be very inopportune to have discussions in your Lordships' House as to what the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee or other people are thinking. I submit that it is a matter that ought to be left entirely to the Joint Commitee. I must refer to one or two observations made by my noble friend about some Report made by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to the Minister of Transport. Several references were made to that Report by my noble friend. I was, apparently wrongly, under the impression that he was referring to a. Report which he had either seen, or had in his possession, or hall read, but he tells me that is not so.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I have not got the Report with me.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: Therefore, I understand, the noble Lord has a copy somewhere.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I said I had not got a copy but I could get one.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: I understood the noble Lord to say he had not a copy here, and I thought that meant he had a copy somewhere else. I want to know where he saw it.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Ah! That is another matter.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: Has he read the Report?
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That I am unable to tell you.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord gives quotations from the Report, but he will not tell me whether he has a copy, or whether he has read it, or where it comes from, and on the strength of some hearsay tittle-tattle evidence he comes and demands that some Report shall be placed before your Lordships. I never heard anything so preposterous as that. He comes and says the Committee were told to re-write their Report. I have to tell your Lordships that the Minister of Transport never saw that Report until it was in its present form. I really think it is a great pity that
  1102
  my noble friend should come with this little tittle-tattle business that he listens to—I do not know where; at some street corner, I suppose—and tell some story about this Committee being bullied by the Minister of Transport and told to rewrite their Report.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Does the noble Viscount really assure me that the Report was not sent back? The Minister may not have sent it, but will he absolutely state it was not rewritten?
  VISCOUNT PEEL: What the Traffic Advisory Committee did with their own Report before they sent it to the Minister of Transport I do not know and I do not care to know. All I say is that the Report in the form in which it is now was presented to the Minister of Transport, and I think it is a great pity that the noble Lord should bring here such trivial incidents and such tittle-tattle as that about Reports made to the Minister. I want to make another observation about what the noble Lord said. He has suggested, I think, that there is some anti-road bias in the Government and that there must therefore, because this Report is not published, be something of grave importance in it, and he draws from that the remarkable deduction that, because a Report giving advice to a Minister is important, it is therefore bound to be published. If that argument were applied, it is obvious that no Report could ever be made to a Minister unless it were published, because somebody could always come down and say that, the Report having been made, it must be important and therefore ought to be published.
  I submit to your Lordships very seriously that I am fully justified in not complying with the request of my noble friend to lay such a document upon the Table. As the noble Viscount opposite has stated with perfect correctness, these Reports are entirely within the discretion of the Minister as to whether he should or should not publish them or lay them on the Table. It is obvious that if any noble Lord in this House or Member of Parliament in another place could come down and force the Minister to lay any Report or advice upon the Table just because he chose to think it important, it would be almost, impossible for officials or Committees to report freely and

  1103
  frankly to the Minister, because they would always have before them the suggestion that what they said would be treated, not as confidential but as open. In that case they could not report with the same freedom to the Minister. I regret that my noble friend should have made any reference to this official document, whether it is in his possession, out of his possession or in somebody else's possession. I think that this was really a great mistake. I think that my noble friend will regret that he has tried to press such an action upon me, and I am sure that he will feel that it is quite impossible for me, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, to assent to his request that I should lay this document on the Table. I submit that these matters are entirely within the discretion of the Minister and I think your Lordships will feel that the discretion of the Minister ought to be respected and observed.
  LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word only. These inquiries are, of course, judicial in their nature and are conducted on judicial lines. I am very familiar with inquiries of this kind—I am sorry to say that they were many years ago—and there is a Standing Order which really regulates the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has referred. It is Standing Order 106A, which says what Reports are to be submitted to the Committee, and it certainly does not include the Report to which the noble Lord has referred. The words are these:
  "Every Report made on any Bill by or under the authority of any public Department shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill."
  That is quite right. You have a judicial inquiry and a Report of that character which is published should be referred to the Committee so that all parties may know what is contained in it. I recollect many cases in old days when such Reports were referred and much comment was made upon them. I think that the noble Lord will agree with what I say when he recollects that we are dealing with what is in substance a judicial body, conducting a judicial inquiry, and therefore fair rules must be observed towards all the parties concerned.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, of course I accept entirely everything that the noble Viscount who
  1104
  presides over the Committee has said and I agree, and in fact it is obvious, that if such a Report were produced before the Committee Counsel on either side would have a right to see it on behalf of their clients, and I entirely accept his dictum regarding the Committee's right to that respect. With regard to the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, I expressly said, though he evidently did not understand me, that I had not a copy of the Report myself but that I was well informed with regard to it and could no doubt get a copy if I wanted it. Perhaps the noble Viscount does not know that the terms of that Report are known to a great many people and are quite freely discussed. He does not seem to realise that the number of people on that Committee who have had access to this Report is very considerable. I do not think it was quite worthy to suggest that I should have picked up my information at street corners. I do not think that I am quite the sort of person to stand at street corners.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: I referred to the tittle-tattle about the Minister having asked the Committee to re-write it.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My information—I am sorry that I cannot disclose its source but the noble Viscount must take it as absolutely undoubted—is that this Report had to be re-written because it did not happen to fit in with the Departmental view. It may be true that the Minister of Transport did not see it himself until it reached its final form, but that it was re-written I again assert and I know that I am on sound ground. After what the noble Viscount has said, I can only make my protest that this Report has not been made public. I should not think of pressing him further. There the matter must rest and everybody must form his own conclusion. I merely add that, in a matter of so much importance, there should have been more quotations and more information given as to the Report of the Committee. This Committee consists of very distinguished people on the whole, who have been very successful in regulating traffic in the London area, and their Report is very vital to the important question under consideration. I have nothing more to

  1105
  say except to thank the noble Viscount. I am sorry if he thinks that I have done anything that I should not have done. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORA- TION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (PETER- BOROUGH EXTENSION) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

  BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

  Rating and Valuation,

  Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions),

  Marriages Provisional Orders,

  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 2),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ealing Extension),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Extension),

  Harwich Harbour,

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,

  Government Stock and other Securities Investment Company,

  Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.