Lords Sitting of 28 July 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  BRISTOL CATTLE MARKET BILL.

    DARTFORD AND PURFLEET (THAMES) TUNNEL BILL.
    BRISTOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, with reference to these four Bills I move that Standing Order 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in order to expedite the return of these Bills to another place, which I think is not unreasonable.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills. —(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL CATTLE MARKET BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DARTFORD AND PURFLEET (THAMES) TUNNEL BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Oder) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the Session.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the Session.—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that to-day there are seven Bills which will be affected by the suspension of this Standing Order. How many Bills will be affected to-morrow and the next day I do not know, but we are making, to my mind, an extremely bad start when we begin with seven Bills, four of which have not yet received a Second Reading. These Bills are to be taken through every stage to-day

919
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. One of them is the Public Works Facilities Bill, which, so far as my limited intelligence has enabled me to grasp the meaning of it, contains some very doubtful clauses. Before we are asked to agree to this Motion, I think we ought to have a distinct statement from the noble and learned Lord as to the Bills which he proposes to take under it, rather than give him a blank cheque. To-morrow we may have four or five bad Bills coming up from the House of Commons which will be covered by this suspension of the Standing Order. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us what Bills he intends to take through all their stages?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, may I point out another difficulty? Under the rules of the House, we are not allowed to put down any Amendment on Third Reading unless Notice is given and the Amendment is circulated. If this Standing Order is suspended at this time of the Session, Bills will come up, we shall have no time to look at them before the Committee stage and no time between Committee and Report, and we shall not be allowed to move any Amendments after Third Reading, after we have heard the arguments. This is really disallowing the privilege which your Lordships have always had. It is very convenient that Amendments on Third Reading should be put down and circulated but, if this Standing Order is to be suspended, we shall be suspending the whole value of the Third Reading and doing away with a very valuable stage of these Bills.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, if we are to adjourn on Friday we have to make the best provision we can, and I really do not think any harm will be done. If your Lordships will look at the Bills on the Order Paper you will see that the first is the Housing (No. 2) Bill, of which we are to take the Third Reading, followed by Amendments. The Motion will, therefore, make no difference in regard to that Bill. The Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill has been postponed until to-morrow at the request of the Scottish Peers. The Public Works Facilities Bill will not go beyond the Second Reading, because there are Amendments to be dealt with
920
and we do not, of course, want to prevent proper discussion of a Bill of that kind. The Public Works Loans Bill ought, I think, to go through all its stages to-day, and I believe there is no objection to it. The Sea Fisheries Regulation (Expenses) Bill is down for Third Reading. I am told there is no objection to it, and accordingly the Bill can pass after the Third Reading. The Navy and Marines (Wills) Bill is, I am told, merely a formal matter but, if there is any point of any importance which raises the question of amendment, I certainly shall not take the further stages to-day. The Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill is purely formal, and is certified as a Money Bill.
As for the other two Bills that are on the Paper, I do not specially desire to bring them within the suspension of the Standing Order. The Education (Scotland) Bill is in the care of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. There are no Amendments down for Committee, and therefore I think it might go through. Nor are there any Amendments to be proposed to the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Bill. I hope that, after the explanation that I have given, there will be no further difficulty. Our only object is to arrange business in the most satisfactory manner, having regard to the conditions that we are always placed in at the end of the Session, when we have to do a good deal of work during the last few days.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was aware, of course, of the general line that the noble and learned Lord was going to take, hut I confess that I am a little disappointed by the manner in which he has received the criticism of my noble friend. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House treats the matters before us as the most normal, ordinary and pardonable programme that you could possibly conceive. It may be that the exigencies in which the Government have placed their business make it necessary to hurry matters forward in your Lordships' House, but that this is satisfactory in any way I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord must in his heart be convinced is not the fact. It is most unsatisfactory. I cannot emphasise too strongly how deeply I deprecate this manner of rushing business through your

921
Lordships' House. Last Friday—I do not think the noble and learned Lord was here—
LORD PARMOOR: Oh yes, I was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not for a great part of the sitting at any rate.
LORD PARMOOR: No, I agree.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But there are three noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite who were here, and I am quite sure, though I suppose they will not say so, that in their hearts they will agree with me in thinking that anything more trivial than the method by which very important matters were rushed through cannot very well be imagined.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL indicated dissent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl does not quite agree. I thought he did. I think we dealt with four hundred Amendments to the Road Traffic Bill. No doubt many of them were drafting, but there were many of very important substance that we rushed through in a very thin House without due consideration. I think the same may probably be said of the Housing (No. 2) Bill. There is no question that the manner in which public business is managed at the end of the Parliamentary Session in your Lordships' House amounts to little less than a scandal. That is the broad fact, which no one really denies, and I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will use his great influence and the influence of his colleagues to persuade the Government of which he forms part that there is only one remedy—namely, that there should be power to carry over Bills which are in this position from one Session to another without their being arrested by the Prorogation. That is the only remedy, and until we have that remedy the same scandalous conditions will always occur. Let me add, with specific reference to the programme before us, that the only Bill to which my attention has been prominently called as requiring particular care is the Public Works Facilities Bill, which is down for Second Reading. I think it was received only—
LORD PARMOOR: I excepted that Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was going to say that your Lordships will hardly be ready to consider that Bill in Committee until Wednesday next. I do not think it is possible, considering the abnormal character of the legislation, to expect your Lordships to be ready to discuss it in Committee without a little interval. Apart from that, I have no comment to make beyond the general remarks that I have ventured to address to your Lordships.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word in reply to what the noble Marquess has said. I regret as much as he does the conditions under which we often have to do our business, but it is the duty of the Leader of the House to try to arrange the business so that it may be discussed as satisfactorily as possible. That is my only object in making the suggestion that I have made. I gather that, except for the Bill to which I referred and which I said would require further discussion, —I understood there were some Amendments suggested in connection with it and it will not be taken to-day under the suspension of the Standing Order—no objection is offered. I understand that the noble Marquess would like the Committee stage of the Public Works Facilities Bill to be taken on Wednesday. We will put it down for that day. I do not want to discuss the general question. We have to do the best we can with the conditions that exist. No doubt there is a good deal to be said for carrying over proposed legislation, in order to prevent any congestion at the last part of the Session, but it is not a matter which we can now discuss in any way. I aim glad to think that the one Bill to which the noble Marquess referred can be dealt with in the way which he desires.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I view with considerable alarm—I have been a faithful follower of the noble Marquess —the suggestion, in which the Leader of the House appears to concur, that we should carry over Bills. That was full discussed at one time, and the proposition has been turned down. There is another thing which I would like to say, and that is that during the five or six years that I have been in this House I

923
have always heard this complaint at the end of the Session of the congestion of business. I think noble Lords on this side of the house have treated the Government very fairly, because there are two or three important Bills which we have had time to discuss. That, I think, is a thing which has not occurred in history, at any rate since I have been in this House. Therefore it must not be taken that all that has been said and felt by us on this side has been in an acrimonious spirit, because all Bills, except one or two very small Bills, have been discussed by us. I think the Opposition have treated the Government very well, and I trust that when my noble friends on this side come to be in office they will be treated with the same consideration.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I should like to make the position perfectly clear. I recognise, and I think we all ought to recognise, the forbearance of the noble Marquess opposite in allowing us to take such a large number of Amendments at short notice on Friday last.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was not me, but the House.
EARL RUSSELL: But we know whose advice the House is likely to follow on these matters, and I have tried to give expression to our recognition of the noble Marquess's attitude on Friday. On the merits of the case I think I ought also to say that there was not very much of substance in those Amendments to the Road Traffic Bill on Friday. There were only twenty Amendments altogether on which it was necessary to say a single word by way of explanation or comment, and ten or fifteen of those were exceedingly trivial variations. Only four or five were of real substance among that large number of Amendments which came up from another place, and although I recognise that the House was very indulgent in allowing us to take them at such short notice, still I do not think that any substantial injustice was done, or discussion prevented. I would only echo in conclusion what has been said with regard to congestion of business. Every Leader of the House has at this period of the
924
Session to move this Motion, and everyone in opposition always says it is a scandal.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there is only one other matter that I want to give notice of. I want to move the London Naval Treaty Bill forward from Wednesday to Tuesday, and Notice has been put down to that effect. It also meets a matter very properly referred to me by Lord Hailsham.

HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order).
Clause 4 [Provisions with respect to property belonging to a local authority within or adjacent to a clearance area]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, after ("the") insert ("Housing Act, 1925, (in this Act referred to as the").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Treatment of improvement area]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("Housing Act, 1925, (in this Act referred to as the").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily.
(2) In the case of land comprised in a clearance area, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any buildings thereon, shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section forty-six of the principal Act subject, as regards the first mentioned of those subsections, to the modifications contained in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act:
Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or is occupied by the owner for the purpose of residence or business, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to omit the proviso in subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter of substance. The proviso and the Amendments which follows in the name of Viscount Bertie of Thame really go together, and I think we can discuss them together. The effect of his Amendment and the proviso is to give a higher rate of compensation for houses which have not changed hands since 1919, although they are injurious to health through narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets. The Government cannot regard a building which is dangerous to health because it shuts out light and air as any more meritorious, as regards compensation, than a house which is dangerous for other reasons. In a sense it is in the direction of limiting the general proposal. The owner himself may be responsible for the danger to health, although he owned the house long before July, 1919. It would work unfairly as we think, as the owner may have held a mortgage before 1919, and taken possession afterwards. No similar provision is found in tile Scottish Bill. It would put serious difficulties in the way of local authorities administratively, and in the case of closing orders no such distinction would be possible.
I rather hope that this distinction between houses owned before 1919 and after may not be persevered with. I said on a former occasion—I know the discussion went against me—that really the fact that property of this kind had been owned for a large number of years made no difference, and this is to a certain extent repealing the provision of the 1919 Act, because so far as that Act is concerned no such distinction is made. I hope your Lordships will agree with the suggestion which I now make, and will not introduce a distinction which we think is not fair or equitable, and which will seriously interfere with the operation of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 27, leave out lines 27 to 34. —(Lord Parmoor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am rather surprised that the noble and learned Lord has invoked the laws of the Medes and Persians, because to say that this is not in the Act of 1919 seems to me an extremely bad argument. This particular clause was put in on the
926
Report stage. I do not think it would quite work as it stands, nor do I think it carries out entirely the wishes of its proposers. I think, however, and indeed I hope, it will meet the views of Lord Buckmaster. What he said was this—I do not see him in his place but I hope I interpret him correctly—that he did not wish, and he did not think anybody wished, to compensate people whose houses were unfit for human habitation, and he went on to say that a person who has a house which is in perfect order, but, through no fault on his part, is in a situation inconvenient or injurious to health from the narrowness of the street, should not be penalised simply because of the situation of the house.
The man who owned a house before 1919 cannot be blamed because it was situated in a certain street. When the street was built that house was probably considered to be perfectly sanitary and up-to-date. This is quite a different thing from the case of a man who keeps his house in bad repair. It is not the fault of the man who owns the house because another house excludes the light from its windows. That is the fault of his neighbour. Therefore, it seems to me that very serious injustice is being perpetrated on such a man who has a house which is a perfectly good house though it is in a narrow street. It is not his fault that the street is narrow. I would like to refer to the Scottish Bill. In that Bill this injustice need not be perpetrated; in fact, there is a provision there to prevent it. It seems to me that this proviso is a very fair one. I quite agree it does not only apply to the freeholder, it applies in certain cases to the leaseholder; but I do not see why the leaseholder should not be treated fairly, equally with anybody else. It is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord desires to remove the proviso altogether, and personally, if the Amendment which is going to be moved by my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame is accepted, it seems to me it would be an improvement to the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move after the first "building" in the proviso in subsection (2)," to insert "which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets," and to substitute "thirty-

927
first" for "first" day of July, 1919. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I cannot quite understand the rather unusual course that the noble and learned Lord has taken in proposing to delete words which were put in so lately as Friday. Further, he did not give very much notice, because I put down my Amendment on Friday night, and it was circulated on Saturday morning, and his Amendment, which he must have known was coming, was not circulated until this morning. The matter was very fully discussed on Report. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who I am sorry to say is not present, for having pointed out the weak point in the Amendment then made. I am sure he realises that was not by intention, and I hope I have met his point by proposing to insert the words "which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." The noble and learned Lord said this was not in the 1919 Act. That is quite true. It is deliberately meant to amend that Act. Because a person is unfortunate enough to live in a house in a narrow street, the owner, if he keeps it in a sanitary condition, is not responsible. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say it was the owner's fault, but if the owner has kept his house in a good state of repair it is not his fault. I hope your Lordships will not accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, and will accept mine.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the object of the Amendment which we carried by a considerable majority as lately as last Friday, was to meet the wishes of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster. During the Committee stage he said he had no objection to the man who had honestly acquired property and kept it in good repair being paid a just and fair compensation, leaving out the additional 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase. Bat he said that there were certain people who, knowing that the Act of 1919 was in force, bought bad houses in order to speculate on the chance of getting something out of them, and he did not think those people ought to be compensated. I do not know that anybody on this side of the House thinks they ought. What we do think is that where a man has
928
honestly acquired a property and kept it in good repair, it ought not to be taken away from him and the only comsation given to him be the site value. That, as I understood, Lord Buckmaster agreed with, and it was in order to meet this point about people who bought property for speculation under the 1919 Act that this Amendment was put in. With regard to the narrowness of the street and the like, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the owner of one house in a street did not lay out the street. The street was laid out by the local authority, and he took the house as it was. If the street is too narrow that is no fault of his, and he should receive fair compensation if the house is taken away from him.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I hope that the Amendment carried on Friday will be adhered to. It does seem to me very unjust that because a house is in a very narrow street the owner cannot get fair compensation. In the whole of these discussions it is always presumed that the owner is either a speculator or an extremely wealthy person. On the contrary there are a great many small investors who purchase and own house property and look upon it as a means of investing their savings. Those people ought not to be discouraged. I hope my noble friend behind me, who represents a very powerful society in this matter, will agree with me when I say that there are thousands of very small owners who belong to that society and are not at all well off.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Hear, hear.
LORD JESSEL: I assure the noble and learned Lord that there is a great deal of difficulty over this matter, and that some local authorities will not put the Act into force because they know the injustices that have been done to poorer owners. I hope that, even if the Government do not like this form of Amendment, they will do something to meet the wishes on this side of the House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, one matter has been overlooked. This method of compensation only affects a house which is dangerous or injurious to health. I understood that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that if the house was so constructed that it shut out the

929
light and air in a manner which constituted danger or injury to health it ought to come into the same category as the other house.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No, I said quite the contrary. I said a house which is injurious to health because the owner does not keep it in repair is not worth anything, and should be compensated at site value only. But, in the case of a house in perfect repair, because somebody has built a wall against it, which he could not prevent, and which, therefore, affects the light and is injurious to health, it is very unfair that he should be made to pay for his neighbour's delinquencies.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that is a point we make. The assumption here is that the building—not another building affecting this building, but the building about which we are talking—from its proximity to other houses and the narrowness of the street, is in itself injurious to health. I quite understand the distinction which the noble Earl makes, but I do not think it is applicable to what we are dealing with here. I certainly thought that he took the other view. I agree, if the circumstances are correctly stated, that there is a great deal to be said for his view, but I think the circumstances are not correctly stated. A great deal has been said about compensation and I thought we dealt very fairly with it. It is only a question of before and after 1919, and we took out the reduction arising from the site being used as an open space, which we thought was quite right. What I cannot appreciate is why you are to have a
different form of compensation whether a house has been enjoyed or owned before or after a certain date. The evils are just as great.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It was to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster's point that there were speculators who bought after 1919.
LORD PARMOOR: That, my Lords, is an additional point. I am sure the noble Viscount need not think that we have not understood his points; he has put them to us in great detail. I do not want to criticise in the least, but that is another point. The question is this—supposing you have a house which is injurious to health owing to its effect on other houses in the clearance sale area and do not proceed by way of purchase, they may make, of course, for this particular house a demolition order. It is only a question as to whether you make a demolition order or whether you proceed to clear the site. I do not think I need say more on the point. I am bound to say that the Government, and the advisers of the Government, are determined to preserve this principle if they can; so I can make no concession.
THE LORD SPEAKER (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, in order to save the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, I will put the Amendment as leaving out line 27.
On Question, Whether the words "Provided that in any case where it is proved that" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Plymouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Zetland, M.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Grey, E.

Jessel, L.

Halsbury, E.

Burnham, V.

Stanmore, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Falkland, V.

Strachie, L.

Lindsay, E.

Hailsham, V.

Wharton, L.

Lucan, E.

Novar, V.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Onslow, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Wraxall, L.

Peel, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Amulree, L

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Thomson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after the first "building" in the proviso, to insert "which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment—
LORD PARMOOR: We accept this Amendment of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. There are two Amendments in my name to this clause. Does the noble and learned Lord accept them both?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 28, after ("building") insert ("which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, leave out ("first") and insert ("thirty-first").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Enforcement of notice requiring execution of repairs.
(2) Where the local authority are about to enter upon a dwelling-house under the provisions of the last preceding subsection for the purpose of doing any work, they may give to the person having control of the house and, if they think fit, to any other person being an owner of the house, notice in writing of their intention so to do, and if at any time after the expiration of seven days from the service upon him of such notice and whilst any workman or contractor employed by the local authority is carrying out works in the house, any person upon whom the notice was served or any workman employed by him, or by any contractor employed by him, is in the house for the purpose of carrying out any works, the person upon whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be obstructing the local authority in the execution of this Act and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is charged that there was urgent necessity to carry out the said works in order to obviate danger to occupants of the house.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (2), after "expiration of," to leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that when we were discussing this clause on Report my noble friend Lord Lamington raised the question as to whether "seven" should not be taken out and "fourteen" put in. It was suggested that it might be left over for consideration—I think the noble and learned Lord was aware of my noble friend's point—to see whether it would not be fair to give a little longer notice than seven days. I do not think I need say more, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 2, after ("expiration of") leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. The clause we are now discussing is a clause which the Government accepted by agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I think, however, he is under a misapprehension on one point. Under Clause 17 (1) a landlord must already have had 21 days to execute works, and, therefore, the authority can only enter and exclude him after 28 days. I think that is clearly sufficient. The noble Earl knows what the difficulty is of obstruction in matters of this kind, and I would ask him not to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, after the explanation which the noble and learned Lord has given I think my noble friend Lord Lamington will be satisfied and I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Special conditions]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 34, after ("of") insert ("subsection (2) of").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Adjustment of rents]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—

933
Page 31, line 36, leave out ("the last preceding subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Supplementary contributions by county council towards housing expenses in rural districts]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Amendment down in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("and the expression 'agricultural' shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38:
Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, &c.
38. A local authority in preparing any proposals for the provision of houses or in taking any action under this or the principal Act shall have regard to the amenities of the locality, the beauty of the landscape or countryside and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic or artistic interest, and shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the Minister.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, before "amenities of the locality," to insert "beauty of the landscape or countryside and the other." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think this Amendment meets the point raised by Lord Dynevor and at the same time clarifies the clause. It is intended to meet the point he raised in order to make the clause more clear, and it does not touch the subsequent matter which Lord Halsbury will deal with when the time comes.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 9, at end insert ("beauty of the landscape or countryside and the other").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: The next Amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pare 38, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("the beauty of the landscape or countryside.")—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39:
Recovery of possession of buildings subject to a, clearance or demolition order.
(2) Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this section in obtaining possession of any building or of any part of a building may be recovered by them from the owner, or from any of the owners, of that building summarily as a civil debt.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (2):—
"but a local authority shall not be entitled to recover any expenses under this subsection unless the owner has failed to make, within a reasonable time a summary application for removal and ejection to the court, or having made such an application has failed to take all steps necessary to have the application disposed of within a reasonable time."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I understand the clause in the Bill the expenses, even if the court has refused an application for ejectment, can still be recovered. It is not fair that the local authority should recover the expenses unless there has been an omission by the owner to take the necessary legal steps for ejection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the clause as it stands is a, re-enactment verbatim of the existing law. We put it in originally merely as an Amendment by reference, but I think, and I believe noble Lords will agree with me, that it is much better that it should be done in this way. I do not think there is any necessity for the change suggested by the noble Viscount. It has always worked well. Lord Bertie, I think, will find that the clause which he wants to be inserted appears in the Scottish Bill, but it really is unnecessary for our procedure in this country. You would be introducing what we consider would be an unnecessary difficulty into the mere re-enactment of a clause which has always operated fairly and properly. I hope, therefore, he will not press his Amendment. No doubt he desires that the Bill should be operated as smoothly as possible.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in the circumstances I will not press it, but I think it would have been better to have had it all the same.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50:
Amendment of s. 64 of principal Act.
(2) The proviso to Section sixty-four of the principal Act shall have effect as if the words "forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or" and the word "otherwise" were omitted therefrom.
(3) The provisions of this Act with respect to the validity and date of operation of compulsory purchase orders made under Part I of this Act shall apply in relation to compulsory purchase orders made under Section sixty-four of the principal Act as amended by this section.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "effect" and insert "as if the words 'or is otherwise' were omitted therefrom." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a, matter which affects the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I had an opportunity of talking with him over this point which was raised on Clause 50, and I think he is ready to propose a form of words which he regards as satisfactory.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 17, leave out from ("effect") to the end of the subsection and insert ("as if the words 'or is otherwise' were omitted therefrom"). — (Lord Parmoor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after "if," to insert "for," to leave out "and the word 'otherwise' were omitted therefrom," and to insert "'is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house' there were substituted the words 'is required for the amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or otherwise.'" The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is quite true that I have raised this point on three occasions. From the very start the noble and learned Lord gave me to understand that he was in agreement with me in principle, and that it was purely a question of wording. Having had an opportunity of talking with him, I propose to move, with your Lordships' leave, not exactly the words that are on the Paper, but an Amendment to them, which, I understand, the noble and learned Lord is willing to accept. The suggested Amendment to the printed words is that before the word "amenity" there should be inserted the word "easement." I am prepared to leave out the last two words
936
"or otherwise." Therefore, with the Amendment I propose it would read:—
"is required for the easement, amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden, or pleasure ground."
That satisfies the principle that I have contended for, and if your Lordships will grant me leave I will move that Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I raise no objection to that, and I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
Page 45, line 17, after ("if") insert ("for")
Page 45, line 18, leave out from the second ("or") to the end of the subsection and insert ("'is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house' there were substituted the words is required for the easement, amenity or convenience of any house whether such amenity or convenience be by way of any park, garden or pleasure ground.")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that the words "or otherwise" come out. We desire that they should be deleted, but in the phrase "required for the amenity or convenience" the words would be "required for the easement, amenity or convenience." The word "easement" is put in before the word "amenity" and the words "or otherwise" are left out.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: The next Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 22, leave out ("Part I of"). —(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60:
Definition of "agricultural parish" for purposes of housing subsidies.
60.—(1) For the purposes of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, so far as regards any house for the provision of which a proposal is approved by the Minister after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, and for the purposes of Part III of this Act, a house shall be deemed to be situated in an agricultural parish if—

(a) the net annual value of the agricultural land in the parish in which the house is situated as appearing in the valuation list in force on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, exceeded twenty-five per cent. of the total net value of that parish as appearing in the said list; or

937

(b) the population of the parish, according to the latest census return of the Registrar-General published before the beginning of the financial year in which the proposal for the provision of the house is approved by the Minister or, as the case may be, in which persons are displaced from the house, is less than fifty persons per hundred acres.

LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "or" and insert "and." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we want an Amendment here upon a matter which was discussed the other day. It is the question of two conditions or a single condition for the application of the provisions of the. Bill. The Bill is now amended. If that Amendment is adhered to there is no deviation from it and that would be averse from the existing law which has worked well. The conditions of value and population have been lowered since the first definition of "agricultural parish" in the Act of 1924. Under the Local Government Act, 1929, there is no rateable value of agricultural land after October, 1929. The present clause, as amended, would benefit wrong areas, that is to say, with small populations and little agricultural land. The existing law was only re-enacted to avoid legislation by reference. For those reasons I hope "or" may be left out and "and" re-inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 9, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the reason we amended the Bill to this extent was to get at what we believed to be the agricultural parish. The definitions placed in this Bill are of a statutory character and provide, first, that the percentage this Bill are of a statutory character and provide, first, that the percentage of agricultural land generally shall be more than 25 per cent. of the whole, and, secondly, that the population shall be less than 50 persons per hundred acres. My wish in the Amendment was to make those alternatives instead of both of them being final, for this reason, that while the 25 per cent. of agricultural land might be perfectly fair—and it is fair in most parishes—it does exclude certain small parishes which are undoubtedly agricultural. Some of our parishes are so small that their percentage of agricultural land is over-weighted easily by something of a very small industrial
938
nature which may be in those parishes. One line of railway running through a parish so raises the total value of that parish that the percentage of agricultural land falls below the percentage laid down in this Bill.
It is those smaller parishes that I desire to safeguard. In most of those cases there is no question that they are rural parishes. They are undoubtedly rural and, but for the fact that you have a larger total assessment on account of the existence of the railway line, no question could possibly arise. If you admit that these two definitions should be alternative, then it still remains under subsection (3) of this clause in the power of the Minister to decide whether both the definitions or one only shall be required. The noble and learned Lord will agree that we do not want to do anything except to get all the really rural and country parishes included for the purpose of getting the additional grant which is required for agricultural labourers' houses. I believe we do get it in the Amendment I proposed to the Bill and that we will not get it if we are persuaded by the noble Lord to re-insert "and." I hope your Lordships will agree not to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I support my noble friend in all that he has said about retaining "or." I have been in consultation with the Rural District Councils Association and they tell me that the effect of the Amendment, if we take away the alternative which was put in the other day, would be that 25 to 30 per cent. of the rural parishes would fail to come within this clause. The effect that would have on housing in those rural districts would be very bad indeed. It would not only affect the rural labourer, but would affect those employed in collieries as well in many districts. I understand the Government are anxious to improve the housing of the people in the country as well as in the towns. The effect of this Amendment would be that the Government are doing the opposite of what they are always saying that they want to do—namely, to look after the housing of the people in the rural districts. All we are asking is that there should be this alternative and that, if they do not come under paragraph (a), they should come under paragraph (b). There are a large number of

939
rural parishes which will be excluded if the Amendment proposed by the Lord President is accepted. I hope your Lordships will prevail on the Government and make them understand that this is very unfair to those rural parishes. One noble Lord is very amused at that.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): No, not at all.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord is only laughing at some joke of his own. If the Government do not give us this alternative, it will have a very bad effect upon housing in rural parishes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I really cannot understand why the Government wish to put in this Amendment. It seems to me that the Bill really carries out the intentions of the Government, carries out what they have insisted upon in speeches in your Lordships' House in the country and other places as necessary to benefit the rural workers. We have been told by Lord Strachie, who speaks with great authority, that, if we do not have this alternative, it will strike out from the benefits of this Bill 30 per cent. of the rural parishes of the country, and purely for a fortuitous reason, simply because a railway or something of the kind touches the parish. I cannot understand why the Government should wish this "or" struck out and "and" put in as that will strike out from the benefit of the Act a third of the rural parishes of the country.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there is no difference between us on this matter. Lord Strachie, I know, is fond of making satirical remarks about the Government. I was struck by what the noble Lord has said and by what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, has said, and I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division; but, if anything further is said on this matter in another place, that must not be taken as an obstacle. We shall not press the Amendment at this stage.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:
Crown rights.
".Nothing in this Act shall affect prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown, or authorise the use of or interference with any land (including tidal lands below high-water mark of ordinary spring tides) belonging to His Majesty in right of his Crown or to any Government Department, without the consent of His Majesty or the Government Department as the case may be."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is another clause which appears in the Scottish Bill and it seems to me that the Crown rights, unless already protected, should be protected here.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 60 insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think I might appeal to Lord Bertie here. It is a legal point. It has always been the practice in our drafting here, and was the practice in the years when I had to do with the drafting of these Bills, to leave the question of the Crown to the Crown and the Department concerned to settle between themselves. To introduce the Scottish procedure, which is different —I do not know why or wherefore—into this Bill, would only be upsetting all the precedents and cause difficulties. I do not believe there has ever been any difficulty under this head. Of course, the Crown interests are in the hands of a Department and the two Departments have always amicably settled all these questions.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord, that it is not necessary to have this in England although it is in Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Does that apply also to my next Amendment with reference to "Works below high water mark"?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Then I will not move the suggested new clause.
Clause 61 [Temporary Provisions]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Amendment which I have on the Paper to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 34, leave out ("Fifth") and insert ("Fourth").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62:
Interpretation.
62.—(1) For the purposes of this or the principal Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "disrepair" includes deficiency arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house; and
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW had given Notice of two Amendments to the definition of "disrepair"—namely, after "includes," to insert "such," and to leave out "except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house" and insert "as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments deal with a point which was discussed at some length on the Report stage.
LORD PARMOOR: We have put an Amendment on the Paper to try to meet you on that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble and learned Lord has an Amendment on the Paper somewhat on the same lines as mine, but I do not think it goes so far or is quite so explicit. This part of the clause simply defines "disrepair" as it applies to painting and papering. It does not define "disrepair" as a whole, but simply as it affects internal papering and painting or distempering. What I suggest is that "disrepair" should only include such deficiency as is the landlord's fault. The obligations of the landlord in regard to repairs are set out at very considerable length and in very great detail in the principal Act, and I suggest that "disrepair" in regard to internal painting and papering or distempering should only be included when it is injurious or dangerous to the health
942
of the occupants. That is to say, that if a landlord allows his house to get into disrepair and does not do the repairs and painting, papering or distempering which he ought to do, and when that is dangerous to the health of the occupants, it should be included in the definition. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 6, after ("includes") insert ("such")
Page 52, line 9, leave out from ("walls") to ("and") in line 11, and insert ("as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think the Amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, make clear the intention I had when I moved an Amendment at the last stage of the Bill. My intention was that the cost of repairs and redecoration should not be put on the landlord where it was customary for the work to be done by the tenant. I think the Amendments moved by the noble Earl are better than mine and I beg to support him.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this is an important matter, I admit, but I had hoped that the Amendment I have put on the Paper would have been thought adequate. I have made further inquiries and I am told it ought to be considered adequate. The Amendment which I had proposed to move was to leave out, in the definition of "disrepair," the words "except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the wilful default or neglect of the occupants of the house." The clause would then run:
"arising from default on the part of the landlord in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls"—
and so on. It seems to me that would be a fair adjustment and I am told it would work well in practice. I think the noble Earl on this point should allow the Departments chiefly concerned to decide what is the most convenient way of working the Bill.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to make one explanation. If the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord is accepted, as far as I understand it, it includes any kind of painting or papering. All we want to do is to protect the health of the people. You do not want to insist upon a landlord going in for

943
expensive wall decorations. It should be limited to reasonable and proper purpose, and I do not see why my Amendment is objected to.
LORD PARMOOR: It is one of those points where the Department or the local authority desire to have power to exercise judgment. I should think probably that judgment would be exercised in the direction which the noble Earl desires and I think it would be wiser to leave it to them.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 63 [Amendments of principal Act]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 44, leave out ("Fourth") and insert ("Fifth").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
PART I.
Modifications to be made in subsection (1) of Section forty-six of the principal Act for the purposes of its application to the assessment of compensation under this Act in the case of lands comprised in a clearance area.
Subsections (1) of Section forty-six of the principal Act shall be modified in the following manner:—
For the words from the beginning of the subsection to "dangerous or prejudicial to health," there shall be substituted the words "Where land comprised in a clearance area."
The proviso to the subsection shall be omitted.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in Part I, to leave out "The proviso to this subsection shall be omitted" and to insert:—
"In the proviso, for the words from 'if in the opinion of the Minister' to 'laid out as an open space' there shall be substituted the words 'if under the provisions of the compulsory purchase order as confirmed by the Minister any land comprised in the clearance area is to be appropriated for the rehousing of persons of the working classes.'"
"For the words any land included in the scheme (other than as aforesaid),' there shall be substituted the words 'such of the land purchased compulsorily as is comprised in the clearance area.'"
944
"In sub-paragraph (a) for the words in eluded in the scheme,' there shall be substituted the words comprised in the clearance area.'"
"In sub-paragraph (b) for the words 'the requirements of the scheme' there shall be substituted the words 'the requirements of the compulsory purchase order' and the words 'or the laying out of open spaces' shall be omitted."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not understand how this was omitted from the Schedule. What was intended to be omitted was reduction arising from land being used for an open space. Therefore this Third Schedule has to be inserted with the Amendment I propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 13, leave out ("The proviso to the subsection shall be omitted") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments of the principal Act]:
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move a drafting Amendment to this Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 6, leave out the Fourth Schedule in order to reinsert it after the Fifth Schedule.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, a Notice has been circulated suggesting that the Report stage of this Bill shall be postponed until to-morrow.
Order of the Day discharged and Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, this Bill is really the outcome of the conference which was held not long ago with the local authorities at the

945
Guildhall. It was found that the delay in carrying out necessary works for the relief of unemployment was hampering the local authorities in many ways, and although the procedure in normal times can no doubt be defended, the procedure in many ways in times which we must regard now as those of emergency is such as to produce unnecessary delay. I think that I ought to give some account of the various clauses of the Bill. Under Clause 1 a more simple procedure is laid down for obtaining powers by local authorities or statutory undertakers who now have to come to Parliament for a Local Bill. The present procedure is full of formalities and very long drawn out. It will be noticed that under subsection (2) the powers of the Ministers are strictly limited to works which will materially contribute to the relief of unemployment, and the powers to be conferred must be such as are customarily conferred on local authorities. They will not enable either local authorities or statutory undertakers to undertake functions of a different nature from those for which they already have statutory powers.
Clause 2 provides for more expeditious machinery for compulsorily acquiring and entering upon land for works. At present, in many cases, orders for the compulsory acquisition of land are provisional and have to be embodied in the form of a Bill, which has to be passed through both Houses of Parliament, and there is considerable delay. In this Clause the Bill provides that an order for compulsory acquisition may be made by a local authority or statutory undertaker, to become effective if confirmed by the Minister. There is the safeguard that, if an objection on merits is made and not withdrawn, the order may not be confirmed until a public local inquiry has been held. Any person whose land has been compulsorily acquired will be entitled to full compensation, assessed according to the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which experience has shown to be eminently fair. This procedure is substantially the same as that under which the local authorities act now in acquiring land compulsorily for houses, so there is nothing revolutionary in the arrangement. Perhaps it should be noted that the power of compulsory acquisition is extended, under this clause, to aero-
946
dromes; to open spaces, where required by Metropolitan and borough councils; and to land required for a building under the Municipal Corporations Act.
An important consideration in regard to getting on with work is that, where local authorities have obtained power to acquire land compulsorily, they shall be able to enter upon the land as soon as possible. It is in that stage of the proceedings that there has hitherto been very great delay, but under subsection (2) of Clause 2, where a local authority or statutory undertaker obtains power to acquire land, they can enter upon the land on fourteen days' notice after notice to treat has been served. This provision also accords with that which has already been enacted in the Housing Acts in regard to land required for houses. It will be noticed that this clause applies to statutory undertakers as well as to local authorities. The former will obtain the powers conferred under the Act of 1919 which they do not now possess.
In Clause 3 it is provided that the compulsory acquisition of land shall not apply to the property of any local authority or to land acquired by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertakings, and the clause also provides that a highway authority may acquire—
"an easement or right in, to or over any such land"—
that is, the property of the local authority or land required by statutory undertakers for purpose of their under-takings—
"for the purposes of the construction, improvement or enlargement of any bridge under or over such land."
The proviso in this clause, together with the Second Schedule, deal with the special case where an easement over or under a railway is required for the purpose of substituting a bridge for a level crossing. The Minister of Transport is very anxious in as many cases as possible to get rid of level crossings and, where the railway companies are agreeable, it is necessary that the procedure should be speeded up. In the case of a level crossing the railway company may have a charge of something like £500 or £800 a year to keep up the gates and attendance, and if, by the substitution of a bridge for a level crossing, the com-

947
pany is relieved of this expenditure, it is only proper that they should make some contribution towards the cost of constructing the bridge. Under the provisions of this clause an order may be made for the compulsory acquisition of the necessary easement, and the question of the apportionment between the highway authority and the undertaker of the expenses of construction and maintenance of the bridge may subsequently be settled by arbitration.
Clause 4 makes some minor Amendments in the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920. The word "arterial," for instance, as applied to roads, was always very ambiguous, and is struck out of that Act, so that it applies generally to all roads. There is also an alteration in the provision by which local authorities can enter upon land, on seven days' notice, only where there is no building or structure upon it. This was manifestly not meant to refer to fencing and walls, and the point is now made clear. Clause 5 deals with Special Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts. In this connection there is some delay, even in cases where there is no sort of opposition. Of the 57 orders issued by the Minister last year 48 were unopposed, and it is felt that the procedure here might be speeded up. Clause 6 deals simply with interpretations and definitions, and Clause 7 makes the necessary adaptation and application of the Bill to Scotland.
I think it may be useful for me to explain to your Lordshipsprecisely the advantages that will be gained under this quickened procedure. Private Bills and Provisional Orders may now be introduced in November and, very often, may not get through, completed in all their stages, until the end of July. That means that six or seven months are spent in carrying these Bills through. Under this Bill that period will be reduced to some twelve or thirteen weeks, and all the somewhat hampering restrictions—no doubt there is a good reason for them in normal times—with regard to certain dates at which notice has to be given and certain periods when Bills have to come before the Committees of the House, can now be dispensed with in this particular connection.
Compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of land can now, before the
948
land can really be acquired and entered upon, last for the period of a year or even longer. There is often a very long delay, after the first formalities have been gone through, before there can be actual entry on the land. Under the Bill the procedure will now be the same as in the case of the acquisition of land for housing, which means that the whole process will not take more than two or three months. Special Electricity Orders now take from nine to eleven weeks, and this period will now be reduced by about three weeks. This, of course, may mean a great deal more than a saving of three weeks if the end of the Session is approaching—a saving perhaps of two or three months. So in these various ways this procedure is being speeded up.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask the noble Lord if he is referring to Clause 1, subsection (8)?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The whole of Clause 1 refers to Private Bills. Towards the end of my remarks I was dealing with compulsory orders, not Bills. In the case of Bills, as I said earlier, there will be speeding up too. This measure, while perhaps not very spectacular, will undoubtedly be of considerable service in speeding up procedure. It was passed through another place, after being amended, with the consent of both the Government and the Opposition Parties, and I now beg to move that it be read a second time in this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Lord a question with regard to subsection (8) of Clause 1. The noble Lord, as I understood him, said that it did not refer to Bills, but merely to orders, and I see that the subsection refers to "draft order." The subsection begins: "If the Minister decides to lay before Parliament any draft order." I presume that means that if a draft order is sub- mated to the Minister it is within his province whether he accepts it or not. It does not mean that he has power to say: "I will accept it, and not lay it before Parliament."
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It is not very clear, and that is what I hope will be the effect of it. Then the subsection goes on to say:—
"the Bill, after introduction, shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee and shall be ordered to be considered in either House as if reported from a Committee, and when the Bill has been read a third time and passed in the first House of Parliament the like proceedings shall be taken in the second House of Parliament."
The noble Lord has done even better than the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who moved earlier in the afternoon to take all the stages of Bills in one day. We do take the stages. We can, under the noble and learned Lord's Motion, discuss the Second Reading and divide on it, discuss Committee and divide on it, and so on; hut the noble Lord is submitting a Bill which says that when a Bill has been introduced in another place the introduction, except in certain circumstances, is perfectly formal. No discussion can take place; and I believe it is the same in this House.
So what will happen is this. There will be no discussion on a Bill which confirms an order until it reaches the Report stage. The Committee is a most useful stage, because both in this House and in another place members are able to speak more than once on the Committee stage. If, therefore, a Minister in charge of a Bill gives an argument which perhaps would not hold water it is open to a member who has introduced an Amendment to speak once or twice, or even more. I have myself occasionally, when there has been a very bad Bill, and I have tried to move Amendments, spoken two or three times upon it. All that is to be done away with, and the only chance is to speak on the Report stage and Third Reading. It does seem a most extraordinary proceeding. You might just as well say: "If the Minister decides to lay before Parliament any draft order he shall do so by introducing in Parliament a Bill to confirm the order, and the Bill, after introduction, shall be deemed to have passed all its stages." It would be much simpler, and would probably carry out the intentions of the noble Lord. I cannot conceive it to be right that the Second Reading and Committee stages should be omitted, and that we should jump at once to the Report stage.
950
I am not so enamoured of hasty legislation as the noble Lord opposite. I understand that he is not going to take the Committee stage of this Bill to-day, and thus there will be an opportunity of moving to leave out this subsection. I hope the noble Lord will meet me on this pat titular point.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should like to say a few words to welcome this Bill. I am very glad to find from what one can see of the general disposition of the House that all Parties are prepared as a whole to welcome the Bill. There may be small points here and there, but the matter is of such urgent importance that for my own part I hope the Government will secure this Bill in its main provisions before the end of the Session. I am really ready to risk making mistakes on small points, rather than that the Bill should be prevented from becoming law. I do not want to exaggerate the position with regard to unemployment in this country, but it is evident that it is of a most serious character, and I am sure that Parliament should do everything it can in order to give people work, so that they should not be obliged to have recourse to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This kind of measure was passed without difficulty during the War, and now that, as I hope, we are employed in a war against unemployment in this country, it is most important that all Parties should work together. I am sure the Government do not want to arrogate to themselves the whole of the credit for work being done to reduce unemployment. We on these Benches are prepared to help in every way, and this one step seems to me of vast importance. Therefore, for my own part, and on behalf of those who sit with me, I offer this Bill a hearty welcome, and hope it will be passed into law before the end of this week.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I have no desire to stand in the way of any noble Lord opposite who wishes to speak, but this is a matter which touches work with which, in accordance with my duties, I am called into rather intimate connection. I think, without disagreeing with what the noble Earl has just said, that I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to certain points in the Bill, which whilst in no way running contrary to the

951
desire that we all feel to help the Government in dealing with the problem of unemployment, it seems to me ought not to be passed over lightly, and which present dangers about which I am profoundly anxious. I appreciate the importance of the Bill and I appreciate the belief, which I see is held, that the Bill provides valuable means of dealing with the present unemployment difficulties, but I find great difficulty in persuading myself to be very optimistic in that respect.
The Bill is really almost a revolution in our procedure, and I cannot see that it will very greatly speed up things, except perhaps during the next two or three months. Parliament will, of course, not be sitting during the next two or three months, and it may be possible that a number of unopposed schemes may be prepared during the next three months, to be whipped through Parliament (I am using the word in a proper, not an offensive sense) before we meet again, and thus provide work during the coming winter. But the unopposed schemes are not those which involve big works, and which are, therefore, likely to help unemployment. My noble friend behind me drew up a time-table which he hopes will be achieved under this Bill—twelve or thirteen weeks I think he mentioned, as against the Private Bill procedure of about seven months. I am sure he was only for the moment forgetting, but of course seven months is the longest time that any Private Bill ever takes to get through. A number of Bills to which His Majesty's Government drew special attention earlier in the year passed long before July although they were only introduced last December. Your Lordships' procedure is already sufficiently elastic to enable unopposed schemes to get through quickly, and in that way I do not believe that this new procedure is very much better.
But when we come to big schemes, involving big works, big schemes which are not only delayed in Parliament—there is the preliminary preparation of plans, there are widespread negotiations and controversies between parties involved—then I 'am a little afraid that perhaps speed may be obtained by paying too high a price for it. I do not think it can be denied that at any rate under
952
the procedure outlined here Parliamentary control will be less efficient. One of the most valuable things we have is the confidence that is felt in the absolute impartiality of the decisions of Committees of another place or Committees of your Lordships' House. Who are going to hold inquiries in future? In future there is to be no Committee stage, either in your Lordships' House or upstairs—at least I think that is the primary intention of the Bill. In future, in place of the Committee stage here at Westminister there will be an inquiry by a tribunal consisting of one or more persons nominated by the Minister, and paid by the Minister, but with no power to give any decision independently of the Minister. Your Lordships will notice that he reports to the Minister what alterations are to be made in the scheme; he does not report to the Minister, "I have rejected it."
But, more than that, I have been very much struck by the dislike there appears to be in the minds of many of the public —I am not certain it is a reasonable dislike, but it is there, and it ought to be dealt with—of the fact that in important inquiries ordered by Ministers one person hears the evidence and another one gives the decision. I am absolutely convinced that an inquiry by an inspector of some public Department is fairly carried out. I am certain his report made to the Minister is perfectly fair on all the facts; and I am equally certain that the decision subsequently given by the Department is perfectly fair in accordance with the conscience of those who give it. But it does not give public satisfaction to people to be told that "A will hear your case and report to B, who will decide it." It is inconceivable that such a procedure should be allowed in Courts of Law. It does not give satisfaction in the more social side of our affairs, and this new Bill vastly extends that system. I am therefore anxious as to its benefit and its value when compared with that great disadvantage.
Moreover, I think the Parliamentary inquiry is a loss from another point of view. It is not only that Parliamentary inquiries are independent and impartial, but they are useful. Scheme after scheme has reached the Committees upstairs, in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House and come out a

953
better scheme than when it went in, the reason being that the inquiry has been held by four or five men of experience who have done valuable, if unostentatious, work to the body politic in criticising the scheme before them. That will be lost. I hesitate to think what would have happened under this procedure, for instance, if the Charing Cross Bridge Bill had not been brought before Parliament, but had been taken under this lightning procedure—a public examination confined to an inquiry by an inspector nominated by the Minister of Transport, and then the Bill merely brought forward in both Houses for Third Reading. I will not pursue that illustration, because I know the matter is still under discussion, but it seems to me we are running grave: risks in bringing forward some of these big schemes, as no doubt they will have to be brought forward under the proceedings now before us.
I do, however, draw a small grain of comfort from something I have refreshed my memory on this afternoon. This scheme is partly, I will not say borrowed from, but is in relation with the procedure which is familiar to your Lordships' minds, the Scottish Provisional Order Bill procedure. It is true, I think, that procedure is much better than this, because in that ease the inquiry, which takes place in Edinburgh or Glasgow, is held by one or other House of Parliament. But never mind that. What happens subsequently is the procedure which has been remarked on by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. A confirming Bill comes before Parliament, and is considered to have been read a first and second time and reported from the Committee, which is the same as here. Then there is a Third Reading stage in both Houses.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My recollection of the reason for that is that it was said by the Scottish Members that only they understood Scottish affairs, and if they went up to Scotland and had a Committee there it was not necessary to have one here.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I would not dream of contradicting that statement, but the fact remains that there is that opportunity of review on Third Reading in each House of Parliament. I
954
am comforted by one fact, however. Supposing some very big controversial scheme came before your Lordships and we were asked to discuss it on Third Reading. We had difficulty enough last week in deciding a matter of one borough extension without having heard any evidence. We may have a similar difficulty and a far greater difficulty in some scheme coming up under this procedure. I can see nothing that would prevent your Lordships, if you thought right, even on Third Reading referring a Bill to a Select Committee. I do not mean to say that under this Bill that would always be the right procedure, the normal procedure, but it could be done; it is an arrow in your Lordships' quiver. And it has been done before. Towards the end of last century there was a controversy—I read the whole of the debate this afternoon, and it might have taken place in the last few weeks—a controversy as to whether London Bridge should be widened because of the increasing traffic. Your Lordships' minds will at once go to Waterloo Bridge. After a short but very interesting debate, with the general consent of the House, the Bill, which had reached Third Reading unopposed in the second House, was referred to a Select Committee. It seems to me that Parliament in those days were wise, just as they will he wise in at any rate keeping that suggestion up their sleeve, if we are faced with a difficult problem to decide without the necessary evidence before us in any schemes that may come before us under this Bill.
There is only one other small point to which I think I ought to call attention, not in an unfriendly spirit, but it is one that makes me feel anxious, as the rest of the Bill makes me feel anxious, but no more. In the First Schedule there is a procedure with respect to the validity and date of operation of compulsory purchase orders. If I read that correctly, it amounts to this. An order can be made. It may be intra vires, it may be ultra vires, but if it is ultra vires and it is not challenged within 2l days it becomes intra vires, and it cannot be challenged again. I am rather anxious to put it more in the language of a layman. I f a Ministry does things illegally and it is not found out for three weeks, I think it is very wrong that its proceedings should thereby be legalised. No

955
doubt I might be told it is probable that in a case like this, which has been actively in people's minds in the preceding weeks, if it was ultra vires it would probably be challenged at once in the Courts or within three weeks; but it seems to me to be a bit of a gamble from a constitutional point of view.
That is all I think I ought to say with reference to the details and not to the objects and principles of the Bill. As a method of legislative procedure it does not strike me as a great step in advance. It almost amounts to appointing a dictatorship, which may or may not be justified. I know that there is honest anxiety to cure a real mischief, but I hope the Bill does not contain the germ of doing real harm to the body politic, misled by the honourable sentiments which actuate the proposals that have been made.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I would first apologise to the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman. I did not observe that he had risen to speak at the same time as I had or naturally I should have given way. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, this question. Is he certain that this is not a Money Bill and that we shall be able to amend it On the face of it it is a Money Bill. Whether it has the Speaker's Certificate I do not know and one never does know.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the very important assistance which the speech of the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has given to all of us. In the first place, I value very much his remarks—I took down his words—that it was a valuable means of dealing with unemployment; that is, the procedure in this proposed Bill. I am sure he had in mind, as your Lordships' House will have in mind, what is in Clause 1 of the Bill—that it is only—
"for the purpose of enabling them to execute work which will contribute to the relief of unemployment. …"
The powers are only conferred for that purpose and the powers altogether come to an end in the year 1932. It is not as though we were superseding for all time the well known forms of procedure that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has referred to. We are bringing in a Bill providing a form of procedure which he,
956
with all his experience, knows to be a valuable means for dealing with unemployment, but only for that purpose, and which is not to be in operation in any case beyond 1932.
He also said what is quite true, that it would operate to speed up things. That is really the most important point of all. It is true that seven months, I think, was the extreme limit that he mentioned; but there is no doubt—I had some experience of these matters in old days, as the noble Earl knows very well—that speeding up, apart from extreme cases of that kind, would be a great advantage when we have this unemployment terror, as I would almost call it, upon us and we want to do everything we can to deal with it in as quick a way as possible, provided we take all precautions that nothing is done that is either unfair or unjust. It is true, of course, that there is no Committee stage; but I noted with satisfaction what I understood the noble Earl the Lord Chairman to say, that as regards the inquiry and the report to Ministers, of course within their power, we could rely perfectly both on the impartial character of the report and the impartial character of the decision. I think that is very important because we ought to be able to rely upon our great Departments to be impartial, as I believe they are, in matters of this kind.
We are not dealing with a political question of any sort to-day, as the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, pointed out in supporting the Bill. We all want something more to be done if it can be done quite irrespective of Party, to help this unemployment difficulty which, to me, is of the most serious kind and must be to any one who has a wide outlook regarding our industrial difficulties. I agree with what the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman has said—and here again I had, I suppose, a much larger experience than any other member of your Lordships' House in old days—that the inquiry by Parliamentary Committees is admirable. No one has ever said that it is not admirably done and in a fair and impartial manner. The only question here is whether, without any interference with the real questions involved, we can speed up our procedure so that the powers may be conferred earlier in order that preparations may be made and employment given.

957
I hope we shall bear in mind what the noble Earl has said, and if there is any Amendment which he would suggest I am sure the House would gladly accept it, because I take it that we shall all be in favour of the Second Reading. I only interpose because I consider that the Lord Chairman's speech is of such great value in guiding your Lordships' House upon a matter which, in a peculiar way, is within his own cognisance and executive power.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I propose only to deal with what is, perhaps, a point of detail. I do not think any member of your Lordships' House would disagree for a moment with what has fallen from noble Lords who have spoken as to the necessity and desirability of doing everything possible to expedite the relief of unemployment. Indeed, the only criticism of this Bill has been in regard to procedure. I happen to have had a good deal to do with the question of local inquiries, and I would like to endorse everything that has fallen from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, and the noble and learned Lord as to the fairness and completeness of the inquiries undertaken by the officers of the Ministry of Health. But it is perfectly true, of course, as the Lord Chairman told us, that because these inquiries result in the report of one person and the decision of another, they are not regarded with the confidence that is placed in decisions of Committees of your Lordships' House and another place. I do not think that is disputed, rind it is natural. That they are absolutely fair and absolutely meticulous and impartial, I am perfectly certain. I went through a great deal of evidence and read a large number of these reports which were circulated to the Royal Commission on Local Government, and we were able to satisfy ourselves on that point, so I speak with some knowledge of the subject and I am certain that they are absolutely fair.
But the proposal is to have a local inquiry and then to go straight on to the Report stage in Parliament. That really means that Parliament will have very little opportunity of offering criticism. If in the case of a very controversial subject the public for some reason, good or bad, do not accept the decision of the Minister on the report of the Inspector, you may have the result that one or other House of Parliament has to throw the Bill
958
out altogether and that would delay the matter much more than if it were submitted to a Committee. But I am rather comforted by what has fallen from the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, that it will be possible in such a case, when there is a real difficulty, to refer it to a Select Committee, I do not know whether it is to a Joint Select Committee or a Committee of the House.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: A Committee of the House.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That would be a safeguard. It would be an ordinary Committee really.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: A Select Committee.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: So that what we have is this, that if the House and the public are not satisfied with the result of the inquiry and there really is a difficulty, the question in the last resort can be referred to a Committee in the ordinary way. That is what it comes to. Your Lordships know that Bills have been thrown out. There was the Croydon, Whitgift Hospital, Bill that was thrown out on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and again the Stoke-on-Trent Bill was also thrown out by your Lordships quite lately. So that it does happen, and I am glad to hear from my noble friend the Lord Chairman, that there will be this safeguard, if in any case there is a deadlock.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, this is quite a normal annual event and is of a perfectly formal character. The Bill fixes the maximum sum which may be issued to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. In this case the figure is £30,000,000 under Clause 2, and it is expected to be sufficient to meet the requirements until August of next year. Every five years the Commissioners under the Bill have to be re-appointed. On this occasion His Majesty's Government have re-appointed the former Commissioners, and have added four further

959
names. I do not want for a moment to enter into the rather acrimonious discussions on this point which have taken place in another place, and I am quite sure your Lordships do not want to indulge in any recriminations here.
It will be enough for me to say that the Government, recognising the services of the former Commissioners, were ready to appoint them all again, and at the same time, on further consideration, the Government thought that in addition to what may be called the City view of bankers and directors of insurance companies and issuing houses, gentlemen with other points of view and other experiences on the Board of Commission would be useful. Therefore they have nominated for service on the Commission four gentlemen who have rather different experience—Mr. Latham, who is an alderman of the London County Council, Mr. Harrison Barrow, and Mr. W. T. Jackson, who are respectively members of the Birmingham and Manchester Corporations, and Mr. Neville, who has been secretary of the Woolwich Cooperative Society for some fourteen years, and was a member of the Committee under Lord Hunter appointed under the Ministry of Reconstruction to make recommendations with regard to rents and mortgages under the Rent Restrictions Act. Except for that, I think that the Bill, to which I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is purely formal.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, I think there is a little more to be said about this Bill than the points which the noble Lord has raised. He has pointed out that four new members are to be placed on the Board, or it is suggested they should be placed on the Board. I might inform your Lordships that this is an entirely unprecedented act on the part of the Government, and, therefore, your Lordships may wish to consider it. Hitherto the Board have carried on their work in happy obscurity, and I dare say your Lordships may not be aware of the reasons for their existence. In 1875 the Board were appointed to act as a sort of buffer between the Government of the day and would-be borrowers, as it was felt that if the work were entrusted to the ordinary Depart-
960
ments of State or any of them, they might be subjected to uncomfortable pressure. Thus I think it is clear that the essential qualifications for members of the Board are, first, competence of judging of security, and then, indifference to the criticism of any individual or body other than Parliament, to whom alone they are responsible.
No doubt the four new members proposed have these qualifications, and I am quite certain that the Board would have had no objection whatever to them on any political ground, because the Board have nothing whatever to do with politics. If I might, instance myself, I was appointed as a member of the Board, and again as Deputy Chairman, under a Liberal Administration. The present Deputy-Chairman is, or was, Chairman of the City of London Liberal Association, and there are other Liberals on the Board, including my noble friend Lord Clwyd. Since 1884, when I was appointed, the only occasion on which any Government has interfered in any way with the composition of the Board was in 1890, when a Conservative Government asked us to appoint Mr. Lloyd George as a member of the Board. There could be no Party reason obviously for that. The reason was, as a matter of fact, that they wished that the Welsh view should be represented by him, as it is now represented by Lord Clwyd. I may perhaps add that Mr. Lloyd George found himself unable to attend any meetings, and finally withdrew his name. Anyhow, the Board readily agreed to his appointment to meet the wishes of the Government, just as they would have been most anxious to meet the wishes of the present Government, if they had been consulted; but they were never consulted on this matter.
I venture to think they should have been consulted before the names were put forward, and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that in my opinion the long, voluntary and efficient services of the Board deserved that courtesy. We had a meeting last Friday, and the Board decided they would continue their services if Parliament considered they would be useful to the country, but I hope that in future the appointments may be made, as hitherto, by the Board with the collaboration and consent of the Treasury, for if appointments are to be made by

961
Party Governments it is open to the suggestion that they are made for Party purposes, and as neither the present or any preceding Government have ever had any occasion to criticise the work of the Board, these appointments are peculiarly liable to that interpretation.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me very briefly to intervene in this discussion. I have had the honour of being a member of the Board for over twenty years, and nave some knowledge, at all events, of its work. I associate myself with what Lord Hunsdon has said with reference to its functions and work. I have no desire in any way to refer in an acrimonious manner to what has taken place, but I think the House will agree with me that it would be impossible for me, as a member of the Board and as a colleague of my noble friend Lord Hunsdon, to allow this occasion to pass without expressing not only my own regret, but the deep regret of all the members of the Public Works Loans Board, at the action which was taken some little time ago in another place with reference to the Chairman of the Board upon grounds which every one who knows Lord Hunsdon must know to be entirely devoid of foundation. It would be impossible for anybody who knows my noble friend Lord Hunsdon to think that he would be capable of being affected in any way by personal or political considerations in the discharge of his duties in connection with business matters as Chairman of the Board. I feel that I have perhaps a little greater freedom for expressing this view on this occasion as I happen to belong, as your Lordships know, to another Party, and I happen to be in disagreement with my noble friend upon, I suppose, all political questions.
There is this one further rather wider issue which possibly may have been raised by this controversy. We live in days of change, particularly in the sphere of Parliamentary debates, but there is one tradition, which has already been referred to in the previous debate this evening in this House, of which we are very proud as a nation, the tradition that any one who is appointed to a position of public trust or to a position on a Parliamentary Commission or any other body is regarded as being exempt from the suspicion of being influenced
962
by Party or political considerations. I do not want to draw too general a conclusion from what has happened in regard to this unfortunate incident, but I regret very much if any action, which may have been taken in another place, should possibly convey the impression that the confidence of the country in this tradition has been weakened.
There are one or two criticisms I feel entitled to make with regard to the way this matter has been handled by the Government, particularly the procedure adopted in the appointment of new members, but I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to do so now. I hope the Government and Parliament will not lose sight of the fact that the main purpose for which the Public Works Loan Commission was set up nearly fifty years ago was with the object of securing, in relation to decisions in connection with certain categories of loans made to local authorities, the advantage of an impartial business judgment exercised independently of any possible political benefit. I concur with what my noble friend has said with regard to the necessity, if the usefulness and efficiency of the Board are to be maintained for the purpose for which it was set up, for the present system and practice with regard to the appointment of its members to be adhered to in essential respects.
If Parliament at a later stage should deem it desirable to examine the question either of extending or modifying this system of public service on a voluntary basis, that should not be done as the result of a heated discussion upon the floor of the House or as a result of a conjunction of difficult Parliamentary conditions, but after an adequate inquiry into all the facts of the case in the usual way and by the usual machinery of a Royal Commission or a Parliamentary inquiry. If and when the time comes for such a review of the work of the Local Loans Board, I say with some confidence that it will be found that this particular body has rendered a considerable service to our system of national finance and has stood for a principle of undoubted value—namely, the co-operation of impartial, independent and experienced business judgment in the service of the State.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the whole House forthwith.
Then (Standing Order No. XXX1X having been suspended), House in Committee: Bill reported without amendment.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before passing the Third Reading, I and a great many of my friends are rather astonished that no reply has been made to the remarks of a member of the Commission or to what my noble friend Lord Hunsdon has said. Are we to have any reply?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I had no intention of being discourteous to either of the noble Lords who spoke and I take advantage of the Third Reading of the Bill to say that I am sure the remarks that fell from Lord Hunsdon will be carefully noted by His Majesty's Government. With regard to what fell from my noble friend Lord Clwyd, I entirely agree with him that it is of the utmost importance that the Commissioners should be regarded as entirely impartial and that their impartial character should be preserved. At the same time, as I said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I am very anxious not to enter into any of the controversial matter and recriminations which took place in another place, and I am sure your Lordships would not wish me at this stage to say anything further.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (EXPENSES) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, the purpose and object of this Bill is set forth in the explanatory note at its commencement. Briefly, its purpose is to put seamen and marines on the same footing with regard to their testamentary declarations as other citizens. Under existing Acts of Parliament they are not. Their testa-
964
mentary declarations are governed by an Act of 1S65, which lays dawn that a sailor, who wishes to make his will on hoard ship has to do so in the presence of an officer and other witnesses, and if not on board ship in the presence of some qualified person corresponding more or less to the grade of officer. These forms are dispensed with as far as possible.
It is true to say that the Amendments to the 1865 Act do not go the whole way towards putting the seaman or marine on exactly the same footing as an officer, warrant officer or an ordinary citizen. There has been some criticism of it in another place for not going further. I do not know if it is worth while to tell your Lordships, but generally speaking the difference amounts to this. The wills of seamen are very often of small amounts and probate of a will varying from £5 to something under £100 would not only involve a waste of time but a certain amount of expense. That, it is considered, would inflict hardship both on the seaman and his relatives and his heirs, and it is for that reason that this measure does not entirely repeal the Act of 1865. Section 7 in the 1865 Act is repealed for the simple reason that it covers cases that occur so rarely that I believe I am correct in saying only one ease has occurred in the last 25 years. If that section were not repealed at the present moment it would add yet another unnecessary distinction between the status of seamen and marines and that of an ordinary citizen. I do not think there is any other point I need mention at this stage. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), House in Committee: Bill reported without amendment:
Bill read 3ª, and passed.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. — (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, I beg to move that the House do mow resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that when the noble Duke moved the Second Reading last Thursday the hour was very late and he had to keep another engagement. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, very properly objected to a mere formal Motion and asked for some explanation of the Bill, but on the appeal of my noble friend the noble Earl was good
966
enough to waive his objection on condition that an explanation was given on the Committee stage. I would, therefore, like to assure the noble Earl that this Bill has been brought in merely in order to bring the law in Scotland into line with legislation which was passed in 1926 for England and Wales. I have the Act of 1926 here, and it is very similar to the present Bill. If the noble Earl compares the two he will find that they are practically the same, with the exception of certain changes which are necessary owing to the Scottish nomenclature. I do not know whether the noble Earl would wish me to go through the clauses? They are perfectly simple and I believe that in another place the Bill went through without any opposition. Unless the noble Earl wants any further information I will simply move that the House do resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before we adjourn I should like to mention that we meet to-morrow at half-past three o'clock so that we shall have time to deal with our programme of business.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.