Lords Sitting of 29 July 1930

Preamble
The Earl of Coventry—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR ON the Woolsack.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
CHURCHES AND UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LAND DRAINAGE BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with certain Amendments to which the Lords disagreed not insisted on, the Amendments made by the Lords to Commons Amendments agreed to and one Amendment disagreed to by the Lords insisted on, for which insistence they assigned a Reason.

INDIA: ROUND-TABLE CONFERENCE.
THE MARQUHSS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State for India, if he has a communication to make to your Lordships.
THE UNDER-SEORETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, a statement is being made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister to-day, and I think your Lordships might wish to hear it. It is to this effect:—
"The House will remember that the suggestion of a Conference was first made in the letter addressed to me by
970
the Chairman of the Indian Statutory Commission on the 16th October. He suggested 'that in this Conference His Majesty's Government would meet both representatives of British India and representatives of the States.' His Majesty's Government have been considering how, without changing the character of the Conference as indicated in this letter, it can be used so as to give an opportunity to the representatives of India and this Parliament for exchanging and discussing views on the problems with which they are dealing and for understanding each other; and His Majesty's Government are impressed by the advantages that would result from the presence in the Conference of representatives of the other Parties in Parliament. Thus we believe that difficulties and differences will be removed and that the legislation to be undertaken hereafter will be facilitated.
"For this reason His Majesty's Government propose to invite the Leaders of the other two Parties to nominate representatives to attend the Conference from both Houses. But I must make it clear that His Majesty's Government cannot throw off their constitutional responsibility and must retain complete freedom in regard to the proposals which they will subsequently lay before Parliament as the outcome of the Conference to advance the purpose announced by the Viceroy after consultation with His Majesty's Government."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in view of the circumstances of the case, perhaps your Lordships would permit me, on behalf of my friends, to make a statement of policy, so far as we are concerned, on the present occasion. It is perhaps desirable that I should say something of the views which we on this Bench and those with whom we have the honour to act hold with regard to the Conference to which delegates from India are being invited in October next. We are as anxious as are His Majesty's Government to see an amicable settlement of the difficulties which have arisen in India, and no one will be more glad than we shall be should the Conference prove to be the means by which such a settlement is reached. But we hold very

971
strongly that, if any settlement that is reached is to possess the element of durability, it must be the outcome, not of a Party, but of a national, agreement. And it follows that we are prepared to accept the invitation which thas been extended to us by the Government to participate in the coming Conference.
Then as to the spirit in which we are prepared to enter the Conference. It has been stated by the Viceroy, speaking more particularly on behalf of the Indian representatives, that it is to be a Free Conference at which those who take part in it will be entitled to submit for consideration alternative schemes for the future government of India. We should naturally claim for ourselves the same measure of freedom as is to be accorded to others. We do not pretend to have any cut and dried scheme of our own. We should certainly require that full and careful consideration be given to the scheme contained in the Report of the Simon Commission. Indeed we recognise in the proposals set forth in Volume II of the Report the greatest constructive contribution which has yet been made towards the carrying out of the policy laid down and agreed to by all Parties in this country in August, 1917.
It sometimes seems to be forgotten that the Report is the outcome of an exhaustive inquiry by representatives of all three Parties in this country, who not only brought to bear upon the problems which they were called upon to investigate fresh and wholly unprejudiced minds, but who sought and received the collaboration of Indian Committees representative of the Indian Legislatures, both in the Provinces and at the centre. No one who has made a careful study of the Report can fail to have been impressed by the fact that the proposals put forward in Volume II have been made, not in disregard of, but, on the contrary, with a very clear recognition of, the special difficulties which have to be overcome. And while we should be prepared to examine with care and with sympathy any alternative proposals which might be submitted to us, we should certainly require that they should be subjected to the test to which the Commission have voluntarily subjected their own proposals —namely, the test of their practical applicability in the special circumstances which prevail in India and which have
972
been set forth, with undeniable fairness and with admirable lucidity, in Volume I of their Report.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, perhaps you will permit me to make a very few observations upon the statement that has been made by the noble Earl. May I, at the outset, express my complete concurrence with everything that has fallen from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition? The Party with which I am associated will of course accept the invitation of the Government. It will be ready to serve by its representatives and to do the utmost in its power to reach a settlement of this difficult and anxious problem. May I say, also, that nothing will give us greater satisfaction than to find, at the end of the deliberations of this Conference, that a settlement has been reached which will have the assent of Indians and of all Parties in this country? It is eminently to be desired that such an agreement should be reached. As the noble Marquess has said, nothing else can really be durable in the way of a settlement.
It is inevitable that at this Conference, free and open as it has been declared to be, there should be much and very important discussion and deliberation in regard to the Report of the Statutory Commission. It may be well to recall, for one moment only, what has happened. The Commission was appointed by the unanimous voice and vote of Parliament to perform duties under the Act of 1919. It proceeded to India and, as your Lordships know, laboured incessantly for a period of close upon three years, and in the end a unanimous Report has been presented to Parliament. That Report must necessarily be one of great authority and influence. It must be considered with the greatest care. At the same time, let me not be misunderstood. The recommendations made in that Report are not sacrosanct. They will be discussed at the Conference. They may be criticised at the Conference. I think the Chairman of the Commission himself has said that they were meant to advise and not to decide. It is a constructive scheme presented by them, reached after much anxious deliberation. It bears on the face of it the evidence of most careful thought and investigation. It is impossible for the Conference to sit without

973
having this Report before it and giving it a great part of its attention.
To my mind the hand of friendship that was extended to India by the invitation to the Conference was wisely extended. It offered to Indians the opportunity of coming to this country, of formulating their proposals and presenting their views to the Conference, and of taking part in all the deliberations and discussions of the Conference. Equally, it is open, as I think the noble Marquess has said, to delegates from the three political Parties here, if they so choose, to make their own proposals; but I think what is essential to be remembered is that all who attend the Conference should attend it with a free and open mind, prepared to consider all that may be said. We have some advantage no doubt in the Report that is already before us. No one can deny that. I think that those who took part in that Commission, who at great personal inconvenience devoted themselves for this period of nearly three years to the work which Parliament had entrusted to them, are deserving of the gratitude of the people of this country and especially of Parliament. I doubt very much whether there can be found a State document which bears the testimony of more careful thought and work than the Report which has been presented.
For this reason I confess that I much regret that His Majesty's Government have not seen fit to indicate any intention—indeed, I rather gather that they have expressed an intention to the contrary—of appointing a representative or representatives of this Commission to sit at the Conference. I think it is an unfortunate decision. No one who attends that Conference can present with equal authority and influence the views of the Commission, after their long study of the problems of India, as well as those who were members of that Commission, and I regret that we shall, according to what I understand from the Government, not have the opportunity of representation of that Commission at the deliberations of the Conference, for again it has been said that no one would be better pleased than the Commission if some better plan could be presented than that which they recommend. On the whole, while expressing satisfaction that the Government have seen fit to continue the course which has hitherto been pursued in Parliament, of
974
associating the three Parties in the work which is being done in connection with India, I regret that they have nevertheless omitted what I think would be a roost desirable step—namely, that of appointing a representative of the Commission.

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, gave Notice yesterday of a Motion to advance the consideration of the Second Reading of the London Naval Treaty Bill from to-morrow to this day. That is for the sake of the convenience of the Ministers concerned and the order in which our business is sent down to the other House. I should propose, if this leave is given me, to move at once the Second Reading of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Motion for the Second Beading of the Bill from to-morrow to this day.(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given accordingly.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I now rise to move the Second Reading of the London Naval Treaty Bill. I do not apprehend that it can lead to much discussion, and certainly not to any difference of opinion, although I know one of your Lordships on the Front Bench opposite is going to help us in the passing of the Bill. The Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, provided that no person shall, without a licence from the Admiralty, build or despatch vessels of war which do not comply with the restrictions as to size and armament prescribed in the Washington Naval Treaties. The London Naval Treaty now prescribes restrictions as to the displacement and armament of submarines and

975
aircraft carriers, and we have been advised that, before ratifying the Treaty, legislation is required extending the restrictions on the building of war vessels in the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, to cover certain vessels—namely, submarines and aircraft carriers, included in the Schedule to this Bill. I think there can be no doubt about that proposition. I am not, of course, discussing the London Naval Treaty to-day, but we are bringing the provisions of the Act of 1922 up to date, so that we can comply with the undertaking which we have come under as regards the more recent Naval Treaty.
Clause 2 repeals Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, in which power was taken to implement the Washington Treaty very commonly known as the Root Treaty, to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war in so far as power was then taken to try and punish for an act of piracy any person in the service of any Power who violated the rules which were set out in Article I of the Root Treaty. That Treaty, as a matter of fact, never came into force, and it is generally recognised that it is not desirable that this clause, which would affect the officers both of this country and of other countries, should be left unrepealed, particularly as it may create misunderstanding between the areas of international and municipal law. Those are the two clauses in the Bill, and I move that the Bill be now read 2ª.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I venture to think the noble and learned Lord was perhaps a little rash in thinking I was going to assist him in the passage of this Bill. I admit that I do not propose to oppose the passage of the Bill, but I think there are certain criticisms and perhaps additions that ought to be made to the statement made by the noble and learned Lord. This Bill only consists of two clauses, and they are very simple, but they are not quite so simple as he told the House. Clause 1 extends the prohibition in regard to the building of ships which already existed after the Washington Naval Agreement, and it extends that prohibition to aircraft carriers of 10,000 tons and under and to submarines of over 2,000 tons. Parts 1
976
and 2 of the London Naval Treaty only enforce that prohibition on the five Powers that signed it, and therefore any other Power in the world is at liberty to build any kind of ship it pleases, with the one exception of Germany. Germany is forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles to build any submarines at all, but she will be permitted, in spite of the Bill which is being considered by your Lordships, and in spite of the London Naval Treaty, to build aircraft carriers of any size she pleases; and of course any other Power which has facilities for building warships will be able to build submarines and other ships as well. Therefore, it means that this country and the four other signatories of the Treaty will alone be prohibited from building those ships.
Clause 2 is a much more serious clause. It is quite true that the Washington Naval Agreement was not ratified by all the Powers which attended that Conference, and therefore I understand that legally it was not binding on any of those Powers. As regards this Treaty, I am not sure—and the discussion in another place did not make it very clear either—whether this Treaty would be binding on all the Powers, supposing that one Power refused to ratify it. I think that is a point of some importance, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to make it clear.
The real point I want to bring before the House is this. This really is a step backward, and not a step forward. The Government tried, as previous Governments have tried, to abolish the use of submarines altogether. I think they were very rash in taking the line that a submarine was necessarily an offensive, and not a defensive weapon. I think the facts of the last Great War showed quite clearly that that was a position that one could not really sustain. However that may be, the point is that under the Washington Agreement Articles were signed by which the Powers agreed that certain rules of war should apply to both surface ships and to submarines. Now, when we turn to the London Naval Treaty we find that surface ships are omitted altogether, and we find that the rules in regard to submarines are somewhat modified. If your Lordships will turn to Article 22 you will find it reads in part as follows:
"In their action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules

977
of International Law to which surface vessels are subject."
I wonder if the noble and learned Lord will tell us what the rules of International Law in regard to surface ships are? My impression is that there is nobody at this moment who could tell us what the rules of International Law in regard to sea war are. The whole of the rules of International Law at sea were set aside completely by one of the Powers engaged in the Great War, and nobody, I believe, knows at this moment whether those rules, which everybody thought would be put into operation at the time of the Great War, are in operation or not. This Treaty says nothing about that, and that is a very serious omission. What is perhaps an even more serious omission is this. We have here an agreement to which five Powers have set their names. They agree that submarines shall not sink ships until they have put their passengers and crews into what they consider a "place of safety" —a rather indefinite phrase, but I admit hat it is very difficult to phrase anything which will really cover every conceivable case.
In the Treaty of Washington there was a penalty clause, by which anybody who broke the rules set down in the Schedules to that Treaty was liable to be tried as a pirate by a Court of Law. In this Treaty that penalty clause is omitted, and therefore it appears that if the subjects, even of the Powers who have signed this Treaty, violated the clause, they are not in the least bound to take any action against those individuals. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us why that clause has been omitted, because I cannot understand that any great nation agreeing to Article 22 in the London Naval. Treaty could possibly object to having a penalty imposed on its nationals who broke those rules.
There is one point further. Here, again, as in Clause 1, this Article 22 only applies to the five Powers who signed the Treaty. We all know that many other Powers have now got submarines, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will take every possible chance they can of seeing that every nation which is a member of the League of Nations will agree to a similar provision, and I hope at the same time they will press very strongly for a penalty clause being added
978
to the agreement which has been signed by the Five Powers in this Treaty. I venture to bring these matters before your Lordships only because I feel that this is really a step in the wrong, and not in the right, direction. Everybody agrees that submarine warfare has to be very carefully regulated indeed to prevent atrocities such as we were accustomed to fifteen years ago. Therefore, I think we are unwise, to put it mildly, in not having a penalty clause to see that the rules agreed to by the five Powers are enforced on their nationals and on anybody else where possible.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I will certainly endeavour to answer the questions put to me in a perfectly courteous and straight manner by the noble Earl opposite. I agree with him that they are very important questions. The first question he asked me was as to the countries—I think he took the illustration of Germany—who were not parties in any way to the London Naval Treaty. They are left exactly as they were, undoubtedly outside the Treaty. It would be impossible in a Bill such as we are now considering, which has to be passed in reference to a Treaty, to attempt to bring in all the other nations of the world, including Germany, who are not parties to the Treaty at all. I think the noble Earl will realise that, whatever our desires may be.
Secondly, the noble Earl asked me a question about International Law in reference to sea matters. I think I should be obliged to agree with him that at the present time there is great indefiniteness as to what the true law is between countries upon points with regard to what is sometimes called the freedom of the seas and with regard to the powers of belligerent countries against a neutral country. There are considerable difficulties in the matter. If he wants to define very accurately what the powers are he would have to have agreement, and that, of course, would be going quite outside the clauses of this Bill, which has reference only to the Agreement to which the five Powers are parties. It would be impossible to attempt to deal with a wider question of that kind in a limited Bill of this character. I think the noble Earl realises that you would want much wider agreement. I hope that such wider agreement may be attained in order that there

979
may be a common International Law upon those matters to which all Powers have agreed to be subject.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I only brought the matter up because the phrase is used in the Bill and, therefore, I really asked for a definition.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, I am afraid I cannot do more. If I did I should probably get into trouble and I think the noble Earl would be the first to criticise me.
EARL STANHOPE: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I want to be quite courteous in my answer. With regard to a matter which was really in connection with the Washington Treaty, I think it is advisable that a particular regulation, if I might so call it, of this kind should be out of the way if a wider international agreement is wanted between the Powers. Undoubtedly it is a difficult matter, prima facie at any rate, to allow the officers of one country to be treated as pirates by the Court of another country which might have a different view of questions of this kind. It is a very difficult subject matter. Personally, I would only say that I think it is a wise course to repeal this section if we want, as I do and as the noble Earl has said he wants, a wider definition including International Law generally, including regulations to which all countries will be or ought to be subject in future. I hope I have answered the questions which the noble Earl asked.
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.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 12:
Assessment of compensation in respect of land purchased compulsorily and of sanitary premises required to be demolished.
(2) The compensation to be paid for land, including dwelling-houses or other premises thereon which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as unfit for human habita-
980
tion or injurious or dangerous to health shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section thirty-seven 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 this subsection shall not apply in the case of dwelling-houses or other premises erected after the passing of this Act which are specified in a compulsory purchase order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets.
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the proviso in subsection (2) and to insert:—
"Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is dangerous or injurious to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the nineteenth day of August, 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."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have to ask leave to make a small alteration at the beginning of my Amendment. It should read "Provided further that in any case" and so on, as printed. This Amendment is limited, as in the English Bill, to property acquired before the Scottish Housing Act of 1919 was passed, or to property actually occupied by the owner for his residence or business. It is designed to bring the Bill into line with the English Bill as amended in your Lordships' House. We are agreed as to compensation for badly kept insanitary property being limited to the site value. On the other hand, the evils that would follow from inadequate compensation when the house itself is not insanitary are, first, that the local authority might not put the Act in force. A town council representing a great number of small property owners, if they were going to be unjustly treated, would simply not put the Act in force. I can vouch for that by experience. Again, the owner would not seek to improve his property; and, thirdly, the owner might suffer by the fault of the regulations or the omissions of the local authority itself.
It has been justly observed by my noble friend Lord Jessel that the Government speakers seem to assume that every owner is either very rich and incom-

981
petent or else that he is a greedy speculator. That is really the reverse of the fact. It is not entirely the reverse of the fact, but it is substantially the reverse of the fact. These poor properties as often as not belong to poor men who have saved something and invested it in house property as a security which remains under their own eye. Therefore, I commend this Amendment to your favourable consideration as a needed provision to guard against injustice and hardship.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 20 and insert:
("Provided further that in any case where it is proved that a building which is dangerous or injurious to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the nineteenth day of August, 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.")—(Viscount Novar.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I think the attitude of the Government on this matter was very fully explained yesterday and I do not know that there is a great deal to add. We feel that if a house is internally dangerous to health it should be treated in a certain way and we do not see why a house which is externally dangerous to health, by reason of its position or by reason of having light and air kept from it, should not be treated in the same way. Why then should it be treated in this special way? The passing of this Amendment will mean that local authorities will have greater expense in their efforts at slum clearance. We feel that passing this Amendment would mean an obstacle in the way of slum clearance. The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment said some local authorities would not put the Act into force if they thought it was unjust, but I think they are very much more likely to be affected by the added expense. That is what we fear, and that is why the Government resist the Amendment. I want to say that we do not consider that all owners of houses which are considered slum houses are either rich or greedy speculators. We know some are, and we know some are not. We do not
982
come to the rescue of investors who have invested money in speculative companies and lost their money, and I do not see why we should come to the rescue of people who invest, in the highly risky investment of slum property; and particularly I do not see why we should do so at the expense of the effort that the Government are attempting to make to help to clear away these bad slum areas. In these circumstances, while I would like to hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn, if it is not I must resist it on behalf of the Government.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, there is an Amendment down in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, who has asked me to move it, he being unable to be present, but I think Lord Novar's Amendment very nearly meets the point, except that my noble friend the Duke of Atholl wishes to delete the words "erected after the passing of this Act." His reason is this. The houses are being condemned on account of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets. The landlord or owner is in no way responsible for this. Most of the houses in villages in Scotland, and especially those in narrow streets, have been built over a hundred years, and often very well built, and well kept up with perfect sanitation. It is rather ridiculous that the owners of these houses should not be compensated in the same way as is the owner who has built a house after the passing of this Rift The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that one reason was additional expense, but why should the additional expense fall upon the small owners probably? Surely, they are the least likely to be able to afford the loss which would be caused by the property being taken away from them in that way, and they only given its site value? The superior landlord is protected because he receives his feus, but the owner is in a very different position, and it seems to me grossly unfair that he should not be compensated in the manner which is suggested, at any rate by Lord Novar's Amendment, which does not go quite so far as the Amendment which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has upon the Paper, though I am prepared to accept Lord Novar's Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I hope that the Government will give way upon this

983
Amendment. As the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Government said, this point was rather fully discussed yesterday. He knows as well as I do that in every case in the blue area compensation is allowed. As far as I can make out from the first clause of this Bill, narrowness of the streets is one of the reasons why you cannot give any compensation. I fail to see why, under those circumstances, something cannot be done by way of compensation for the man who, through no fault of his own, has a good house in a street that is narrow, and which it is thought a part of the duty of the local authorities to get rid of. I quite agree that it costs more money to the local authorities, but I think the House was of opinion the other day, when Lord Buckmaster was eloquently arguing on this question, that it is no argument for getting a thing cheaply that you are committing an injustice. I am glad to think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has admitted that a great many landlords are neither rich nor scoundrels, and it is a well known fact that many of the working class in this country invest their money in small property. It is one of the things they regard as safe, and I think you will perpetrate a very grave hardship on a deserving class of the community if you do not accept this Amendment. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, will persist, and, if he goes to a Division, I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Adjustment of rents]:
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Amendment down in my name upon this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 42, leave out ("thy last preceding subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed, to.
Clause 28:
Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, &c.
28. 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 natural amenities of the locality and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and
984
shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the Department.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("natural") and insert ("beauty of the landscape or countryside and the other").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Power of sheriff to determine lease where premises demolished]:
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the Amendment upon the Paper in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 38, after ("lease") insert ("and the action taken under the order has not had the effect of determining the lease").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35:
Amendment of s. 51 of principal Act.
(2) The proviso to Section fifty-one of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words "forms part of any park garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house" there were substituted the words "forms part of any park garden or pleasure ground occupied together with and required for the amenity or convenience of any house."
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "occupied together with and" and insert "and is." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is not quite drafting, but is almost so. It secures that land cannot be taken for housing purposes if it forms part of a park, garden or pleasure ground and is required for the amenity or convenience of the house. It is really interpretative. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("occupied together with and") and insert ("and is").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49:
Interpretation.
49.—(i) For the purposes of this Act and of the principal Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
the expression "disrepair" includes such deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls as is likely to injure or endanger the health of the occupants of the house, except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the default or neglect of the said occupants; and
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in the definition of "disrepair," after "deficiency," to insert "arising from default on the part of the landlord." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment brings this clause in the Scottish Bill into line with the Housing (No. 2) Bill for England, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will insert this addition to the definition—"arising from default on the part of the landlord."
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 19, after ("deficiency") insert ("arising from default on the part of the landlord ").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the definition in the Bill contains an exception where the deficiency is due to default or neglect of the tenant, and this exception is virtually the same as the exception proposed by the noble Lord. It has the same effect whether the deficiency is due to the default or neglect of the tenant or arises from default on the part of the landlord. It seems to me there is very little difference, and I hope the noble Lord will see that and not press his Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, we did not think this altered the meaning, but we were advised that the drafting would be a little better if we had these words in. I do not suppose it makes a very great difference.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I do not object particularly to this Amendment, provided that the House would then leave out the other words, because you cannot have them both in. We would then have to leave out the words after "house," but it seems to me that it is virtually the same thing, and I thought perhaps the noble Lord would see that.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Would you allow us to put it in now and consider it before the next stage?
LORD PARMOOR: We are taking the Bill right through to-day.
LORD MARLEY: We should have to take the other words out. We could not leave both in.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: If the noble Lord will give an assurance that the wording of the Bill has substantially the same effect as that proposed by my noble friend, I am inclined to think that he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MARLEY: I can quite definitely give your Lordships' House an assurance that it is merely another way of putting it.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: We will accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MARLEY: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 34, leave out ("Part I of").—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I do not know how much you wish to hear about the Finance Bill. It is probably by this time very familiar to you from various channels. Perhaps I ought to draw attention to the fact that last year closed with a deficit of £15,000,000 in very round figures and that when the Estimates and adjustments for the present year were made that deficit was increased to £26,000,000. Of course both those figures cover a number of in and out transactions, but the net result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to provide for a deficit of £26,000,000 odd. He has provided, as your Lordships will be aware, for that deficit by an increase of taxation, partly upon beer to the extent of £3,000,000, and partly upon direct taxation—the Income Tax, the Surtax and the Estate Duties

987
against which there are some reductions —to the extent of £31,000,000 leaving a probable surplus of £3,000,000 odd.
Your Lordships may have differing opinions about that, but I would at any rate like to call attention to one thing —that it is a very straightforward Budget, that an attempt is made to pay our way as we go, and that there is some attempt made to maintain the Sinking Fund. That has been criticised from two points of view. Some people think it is partly nullified by hidden borrowing in another direction, and that it is, generally speaking, not adequate. On the other hand, the opinion is expressed that we need not provide so much. Between the two possibly a safe course has been adopted.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Estimates of Revenue, prepared, as your Lordships will be aware, by very experienced officers whose Estimates have been on the whole remarkably accurate, show that the Income Tax without taking into account any alterations—the Income Tax taken on the old basis—is expected to yield nearly £2,000,000 more than it did last year, and that Customs and Excise, also on the old basis, are expected to yield another £2,000,000 or more. I do not draw attention to that for any other reason than to point out that it ought to give a little encouragement to those who are apt to believe that this country is not making any profits. In spite of all our stages of depression and our incorrigible habit of self-depreciation, it does seem as if in the aggregate the income of the country is being maintained, and we are entitled to believe that it is even slightly increasing. The other feature of the Budget is, as I say, that an attempt is made plainly and simply to pay our way as we go. Opinions will differ as to whether the wisest taxes have been chosen for that purpose, but I venture to think that on the whole it is better that we should take up the position of placing the burden in proportion to the ability to pay. Certainly, Whether that is accepted or not, that has been the principle upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proceeded.
I want to say one word about another feature of this Finance Bill. Finance Bills inevitably are long and extremely complicated, but I think your Lordships may pass over all the other clauses if
988
you will allow me to refer for a moment to a set of clauses designed to prevent, I will not say the evasion of taxes, but the avoidance of taxes which has been up till now, in certain directions, law. It is part of the right of a British subject so to arrange his private affairs that he can avoid within the law any of the taxes which would fall upon him. It is also part of the right, and I should say the duty, of the Government when they discover such avoidance on any considerable scale to come to Parliament to get the law altered so as to prevent that avoidance in any way which is contrary to the spirit at any rate of the enactment of the tax. Care has to be taken, of course—care ought to be taken—in such a matter not to interfere, first of all, with the course of business, and secondly not to interfere with the quite legitimate arrangements of individuals which are not intended to avoid the taxes. I think the discussion which has taken place in another place and also consideration of the drafting of the clauses have shown that very great care has been taken to avoid both these things.
The clauses as they now stand may be taken to represent the best that can be done by those expert in the subject to counteract and to prevent that avoidance of taxation which has grown up—there are several forms of it which are dealt with in this Bill, as your Lordships will know—and, at the same time, care has been taken that these new provisions should not either improperly interfere with the proper course of business or injuriously affect individuals who are not engaged in the endeavour to avoid taxation. I think, perhaps, I shall consult the convenience of your Lordships if I do not say anything more on the subject, and I will therefore move now that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Passfield.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships can view with any great satisfaction the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book. I do not wish to quarrel with the clauses to which the noble Lord who has just spoken chiefly confined his attention—those dealing with the evasion of various taxes. The one merit of the Bill seems to me that it is an honest and straightforward attempt to pay for the extravagance of our Government during the last

989
few years. All this extravagance was not that of the present Government. Some of the provisions in this Bill mean that they will have to pay some of the debts incurred by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the present Government are not entirely guiltless of having added to the expenditure of the country. The last Chancellor of the Exchequer for five years played with a number of items of a capital nature. He raided reserves to meet current account until no reserves were left. Then, when there were no reserves, Mr. Churchill himself was not in office. The reserves disappeared and the Chancellor of the Exchequer disappeared at the same time. Now we find that Mr. Snowden's first duty has been to pay the debts which were incurred by other people, and in that he has the sympathy of everybody. We do not have much sympathy for people who have to pay their own debts, but, when they have to pay other people's debts, we feel it is rather hard on them to be obliged to do so.
None the less we must point out that he has added much to the expenditure of the country and to our debts. In twelve months there has been an increased Expenditure on a very large scale indeed towards the payment of people who are out of work. Last week there was a Bill passed, which reached your Lordships' House only this afternoon, called the Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill. The sting of the Bill lies in the tail of the Title. It is the fourth time in one single Session of Parliament that His Majesty's Government have been obliged to come to the Houses of Parliament in order that they may raise the money necessary to pay for the unemployed in this country. No wonder that, in these circumstances, His Majesty's Government find themselves obliged to add 6d. to the Income Tax, but that 6d. will help to cripple industry and to put off that revival in trade for which we hope. Increased taxation must always have an ill effect upon the business of this country and my complaint is that there is nothing in this Finance Bill which will prevent more taxation being necessary when the time comes next year.
It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised he would put on no more taxes next year, but I cannot help wondering whether, in view of the
990
large increase in the unemployment figures, he has not already regretted the promise he made when he introduced the Finance Bill. Unemployment has gone up no less than 800,000 in numbers since His Majesty's Government took office. Not only that, but the Minister of Labour said in another place the other day that she thought by the end of the year the numbers might be as great as 2,300,000. These figures are appalling and it is perfectly obvious and perfectly simple that the amount of money needed for these unemployed must be at least double what it was when the numbers were half the present figure. It is obvious there is no hope for a reduction in our Expenditure and an increase is inevitable and more taxation next year seems to me necessary. His Majesty's Government do not seem to be doing anything to avoid that increased unemployment in the course of the winter.
I am not sure that we are not all of us a little bit to blame in this matter. We are all too much used to seeing the figures of unemployment week by week in the newspapers. We are deadened to the appalling calamity involved by the fact that there are so many unemployed in the country. Last week £10,000,000 was voted in another place unanimously and all Parties agreed that it was necessary that it should be raised and spent. I wonder very much, ii there would have been the same unanimity if the House of Commons had been asked to vote a similar sum of money or even a larger sum for a Development Fund that would have given a large amount of money to a people out of work. Your Lordships will remember that a large Development Loan was part of the policy put before the people of this country at the time of the last General Election. £70,000,000 was all that we suggested should be spent in the first year. We were attacked as if it was almost an indecent suggestion to make. Yet, on the other hand, the interest would have been secured, it would have meant no increase in the taxation of this country, it would have been covered by the existing duties without levying another penny of taxation, while the interest payable has been swallowed up over ten times already in the amount of money that His Majesty's Government have raised in Unemployment Insurance Acts since they came into office.

991
It would have been far better to have raised that loan in order to keep a large number of people at work instead of paying them as we do under our present system. It was attacked as a quack remedy. There are circumstances where a quack remedy that is efficient is better than no remedy at all. Although the charge was made that some of the money might have been wasted, we are getting no return at all from the money now being spent in unemployment insurance and all that money is, from the remunerative point of view and from the point of view of adding to the capital of this country, entirely wasted at the present time. For my own part, I look upon this Budget as a necessary evil and I only regret that we cannot have from His Majesty's Government some statement that they hope to diminish Expenditure during the coming year, since the alternative must be a substantial and disastrous increase in the taxation of this country.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Earl, who is the leader of the Liberal Party, has made such profound remarks upon the Second Reading of this Bill. We have often passed this Bill in silence in your Lordships' House. There has never been a Bill in modern times which has called for so much comment as the present Finance Bill. I am not going to follow the noble Earl in his remarks about the expenditure of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, because that is past history and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is well able to defend himself, as he has done in another place. I would like to refer to what the noble Earl has said about the increased Expenditure in this Budget. A great deal of that Expenditure is, of course, due to the amount required for unemployment. One of the reasons for the increased unemployment which occurs in this country is the increased taxation. The increased taxation and the general lack of confidence in affairs and in this Government have no doubt got something to do with it.
I am not going to be unfair to the Government, because we all know that there is world-wide depression in practically every country, but, when the noble Lord refers, as he has done so eloquently, to the question of unemployment and to the amount of money that we have to
992
pay to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, I would remind him that we on this side of the House did all we could to tighten up the rules and regulations affecting the administration of what is known outside this House as the "dole." Nothing astounds foreigners and foreign countries more than the fact of the "dole" here. They do not understand it. When you explain that originally it was a three-party bargain between the employer, the workman and the State for purposes of insurance, they reply that they understand that but do not understand what it is now—a gigantic form of outdoor relief. I am glad that the Government have at last awakened to the fact and are appointing a Committee to enquire in that direction. We got very little help in this House from the noble Lord and his friends when we tried to tighten up the administration in the Act which passed through this House in the earlier part of this Session dealing with unemployment.
There is one question on which I would like a reply from the Government Benches. Why is it that this Bill has not been certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons as a Money Bill? It is rather unusual for a Finance Bill to come to this House which is not certified by the Speaker. I know the reason perfectly well. It is because there are a lot of clauses dealing with valuations and alterations in valuations of property, especially in the Metropolis. It does seem to me a principle that we ought to object to, the tacking on to a Finance Bill of extraneous matters. That was one of the great arguments against the Finance Bill of 1909. I hope that, when the noble Lord replies for the Government, he will tell us why there have been tacked on to this Bill matters that are not essential to a Finance Bill. I think that is a matter of constitutional moment, and I hope that, if possible, an adequate answer will be given from the Government Bench.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking on this Bill, and I do so only because the noble Lord in charge of it devoted most of his speech to the provisions for outlawing the land companies from the ordinary Companies Acts. He has led your Lordships to imagine that these companies were

993
formed to evade taxation. That is not a fair representation—in fact, it is a very unfair one. The companies were formed because of the unfair incidence of certain forms of taxation (especially one form) upon the agricultural industry as compared with any other industry. They were formed so that the Super-Tax on agriculture might be levied on the same basis as that on which it is levied on other industries.
Let me give your Lordships an example. Take an estate of £100,000 in land and an estate of 100,000 in Stock Exchange securities. Taking the two forms of investment over the last ten years, you world find that a large agricultural estate—I have such a case in mind—returned a revenue of less than nothing, while the revenue from the £100,000 in Stock Exchange securities came to about £4,000 a year. That was largely due to the Super-Tax unjustly charged on the agricultural industry. It was for that reason that these companies were formed and, if there is any shame connected with the matter, it rests upon the Governments that have raised an undue proportion of taxation from the agricultural industry, as compared with any other industry.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, except in courtesy to the noble Lords who have spoken, I do not think that I have any need to trouble your Lordships again, but I will venture to answer very briefly the remarks that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, was apprehensive of further Expenditure. All Governments are in the position of having to resist pressure for further Expenditure, as any rate in another place, and even in this House I apprehend that tomorrow, when we come to the subject of sugar, some pressure will be put upon us to incur further Expenditure from Government sources.
EARL PEEL: From your own side, I think.
LORD PASSFIELD: I only hope that the desire for no further increase in Expenditure will be remembered when this is done. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I would only say that, whatever lack of confidence in the Government there may be, it is a very significant thing that the estimated receipts from Income
994
Tax during the current year are actually more than they were last year and, I believe, more than they have ever been.
LORD JESSEL: Because the tax is higher.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am taking it on the same basis as last year, and of course I am not including the extra 6d. The figure is £239,000,000, as compared with £237,000,000. The fact is that, though there are parts of the country that are suffering very severely, in the aggregate the country is not making a lower income than it has been making. I am very glad that it should be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, asked why the Bill was not certified. The business of certification is carried out by the Speaker in another place, and the Government have no communication with him on the subject, but I should like to point out that, of all the Finance Bills that have come up to your Lordships since the Parliament Act, just about half have been certified and half have not been certified. I do not know on what grounds the Speaker has proceeded, but it is not an unusual thing for the Finance Bill not to be certified. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, made his own suggestion. He thought that it was because there were clauses in the Bill relating to valuation. That may possibly have been the case. It is often found convenient to put matters of that kind, which are exactly germane, for instance, to Income Tax, into the Finance Bill, and that practice has been repeatedly followed by Chancellors of the Exchequer of all Parties.
The noble Viscount, Lord Novar, reproached me, I think, for practically endorsing the outlawing of land companies. I did not mention land companies, and I did not have them in my mind at all, but the noble Viscount has, I think, given himself away, because he has explained very candidly that these companies were formed in order to avoid the unfair incidence of certain forms of taxation which were unjustly charged upon agriculture. I would only remind your Lordships that this was not done exclusively or mainly by those with whom I am generally associated. That wicked action was common to the Chancellors of the Exchequer on both sides. Of course those who seek to avoid taxation

995
always assume that the taxation is unfair and unjust. Whilst it is the right of every individual to seek to avoid taxation, so far as he lawfully can, it is equally the right of the Government to put it to the House of Commons that their intentions should be carried out and enforced. The noble Viscount's remedy is really against the Government which introduced and carried through such unjust charges and unfair incidence. I hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

MALTA.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government will consider favourably a recommendation submitted by the Government of Malta, that plans and estimates for breakwaters at Marsa Scirocco Bay, Malta, prepared by the chief engineer of that Administration, may be checked and revised as proposed by experts selected by the Admiralty as a step towards—what was described by the Minister for Air last year—making Malta the Clapham Junction of the Air; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a debate last year my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air recorded the happy phrase that Malta was destined by nature to become the Clapham Junction of the Air, and he hoped that this consummation would some day be realised. It may interest your Lordships to hear what has happened in the interval to bring that consummation more within the range of practical politics. The estimate of £25,000,000 for converting Marsa Scirocco Bay into a suitable landing place for flying boats, which was probably prepared by a facetious bureaucrat to adorn as it did the pages of Punch, has been checked most carefully by the chief engineer and the staff of the Malta Public Works Department on data ascertained in the building of a breakwater on the neighbouring Island of Gozo, and it is now established that the correct estimate is not £25,000,000 but £3,012,000, after allowing for contingencies, machinery, roads, quarries, and so forth.
Another factor in bringing this work more within the range of the works necessary for Imperial Defence is the so-called Naval Agreement, conspicuous for the disagreement which it has brought into prominence between two great Mediterranean Powers. If that disagreement, which centres upon the natural wealth of Tunisia as a desirable place for the over-flow of European populations, leads up to a crisis through the pacific penetration of the rapidly breeding flow of emigrants from Southern Italy overwhelming the non-multiplication of French colonists, we may have the making of a war and when that danger comes we shall either have to become belligerents or neutrals. If belligerents, we shall find that Malta is, hopelessly unprepared. If we are neutral we shall find that Malta can only be approached through the air by flying-boats; because other craft heavier than air will be unable to cross France or Italy.
Flying boats have now reached the stage of development when they can carry as many as a hundred passengers, and there is one on Lake Constance, built by the Germans, with 12 engines. On the other hand, other aircraft have to alight on three points, which must also be resilient, and experiments have shown that fifteen tons is the maximum weight that can be put upon the three points. Flying-boats can land on four-fifths of the area of the world. Other aircraft have to land on selected and specially prepared places, and therefore it is evident that, if Great Britain is to hold in the air any position comparable to her place as the greatest maritime Power, then we must be alive in preparing for the landing of flying-boats at strategic centres, and above all in one principal place of arms outside England. It takes time to prepare and adapt these suitable alighting places. It will take ten years to build the breakwaters at Marsa Scirocco Bay.
Another point of interest in the consideration of this question is the decision to go on working on the naval base at Singapore, or rather to go on spending a little money from time to time by way of not dropping this scheme. If the Singapore base can as facing the Pacific be compared to Southampton in reference to the Atlantic and if Malta is to be compared to Clapham Junction in reference to Singapore, it is of little use

997
spending money on Singapore when Malta, as the Clapham Junction of air-communication, is bereft of protected alighting areas and overcrowded with shipping. The Naval Agreement has not diminished the overcrowding of the harbours of Malta. The Naval Agreement or Treaty, or whatever else it may or may not be, has shifted the principal centre of naval strategy, and Air Force strategy goes with it, back again to Malta. The harbour of Malta is as crowded now as it has ever been, and so we hope it will continue for some time. The pressure is so great for mooring space that, with the best of goodwill, waters hitherto set aside by cherished agreements for use for commercial purposes are constantly and inevitably encroached upon by naval craft. The building of the breakwater at Marsa Scirocco Bay would put an end to that really serious and otherwise burning grievance, and would provide an anchorage for destroyers and other craft now crowded together in the harbours at Valetta.
There is a twin necessity in this matter. There is a naval necessity as well as an Air Force necessity. It is perfectly true that to ask for money from either Navy or Air Force Votes to the tune of £3,000,000, or £300,000 a year for ten years, is not a proposition likely to obtain a favourable response today from my noble friends on the Treasury Bench, and to-day I shall be satisfied if the scheme is not excommunicated. It is too good to be damned, and it should be remembered that there are certain features in the communications between the nations that are based on the configuration of the earth. The preeminence of certain centres is ordained by nature, and depends upon the law of the survival of the fittest. There was 3,000 years of talk before the Suez Canal was constructed. A Pharaoh of Egypt had to give up digging because the sand absorbed the water, and "to save his face" he bargained with a Phoenician admiral to bring his Red Sea ships round into the Nile. Heredotus says of the Admiral who asserted that, when going round the Cape, the sun was on his right-hand side, that if others believed the lie ho did not. It would be equally incredible to-day if the present Government were to show too much sympathy, and much less produce the money for the
998
immediate construction of this breakwater, but it is one of those things, ordained by nature, which is to be.
Great Britain will have either to go on with naval and military defence on an established and adequate basis, with a reasonable appreciation of modern inventions, or we must give it up; and whether we continue to be a naval and military Power, or whether we lapse into the position which satisfied Portugal 150 years ago, or Holland achieved a little later, the expenditure on making Malta the Clapham Junction of the air would not be wasted. The £3,000,000 spent on making Malta the principal Mediterranean centre of air traffic will produce prosperity and reward the outlay of capital. It will add to the glory of England to the end of time. The cost will be less than the cast of a cruiser, which twelve years hence, when this breakwater is finished, would have to be scrapped.
In conclusion, I have only one point to repeat and emphasise, which is that the future development of long distance air traffic must be by flying boat. We have neglected that branch of aircraft construction, but that branch of aircraft construction when it receives due attention will be useless, unless we provide places where alighting is easy and safe. We have neglected all these things in comparison to other nations, closing our eyes to expenditure which is inevitable. A few days ago I flew from England to Tunis. There I observed most businesslike flying boats subsidised by the French and Italian Governments—only 210 miles from Malta but without any air line. We can fly to Marseilles at no greater cost than travelling by the P. & O. express, and the ticket to Tunis by air is less than £20. And so far on account of diarchical difficulties in Malta we have done nothing, nothing, nothing. There is a naval school of thought which holds that Malta is indefensible in wartime against air attacks, except by counterattack by air. Where are our preparations for that sort of defence? They are very inadequate. We have few flying boats, none of which is able to fly to Tunis. If Malta becomes the Clapham Junction of the Air there will be on the spot much of the material for a rapid development on the outbreak of war. But

999
the policy of our Governments has of late been never to prepare for war, to wait till the eve of wax, to accumulate perhaps credit and sinking funds in time of peace, and to be able to tax and to squander money like water in hasty preparation when war comes. I hope that, as far as the flying boat base in Malta is concerned, there will be foresight and imagination and that the support for that project will year by year increase as its necessity is better understood.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, the request of the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, may, I think, be divided under two headings—the Clapham Junction aspect, and the Imperial and strategical aspect. I will deal with the Clapham Junction aspect first. It is perfectly true that I said to the noble Lord on one occasion, and I think in this House, that Malta might well one day be the Clapham Junction of the Air, but if that happy state of affairs should eventuate the principal beneficiary will be Malta itself and the inhabitants of Malta, who should therefore be prepared to contribute handsomely to so desirable a consummation. I notice in the communications put up from Malta through the noble Lord that there is no reference to Maltese participation in paying for this Clapham Junction of the Air. On the contrary, whereas I was wrong in stating that this breakwater would cost £12,000,000, I find that an Admiralty figure puts it at £3,000,000, and I find that the Maltese surveyor puts it at £3,012,451 10 s. 10 d. While that figure is set down with such meticulous care, I find that the Maltese contribution to that large sum is only £100—a fee to the surveyor. I am most desirous of assisting the development of aviation throughout the Mediterranean, and I am one of the first to recognise the important part that Malta might play in that development; but I think it would be more becoming on the part of the inhabitants of Malta if, while expressing this passionate desire to improve themselves, they were also prepared to put their hands in their pockets to a somewhat larger extent than £100 out of £3,012,451 10 s. 10 d.
Now for the strategical and Imperial aspect of the question. That, if I may say so with all respect to the noble Lord, has been somewhat misrepresented. It
1000
is perfectly true that Malta possesses very great intrinsic value from the strategical point of view, and the matter is being investigated. But the noble Lord himself has brought up this question already once, and on that occasion he stressed the economic side rather more than the strategic side. Whether it would be worth while to spend this large sum of money merely to have a seaplane base—an additional seaplane base, I should point out—in Malta is a matter for very mature consideration. You cannot plunge into expenditure of that kind merely as a luxury: the necessity has to be proved. And, though it would be highly convenient for visitors to Malta to be able to land by seaplane, I do not know that that should really influence His Majesty's Government in reaching a decision.
I can say this. Admittedly there is congestion in Malta. There are not sufficient aerodromes, and it would be very convenient to have an extra seaplane base. But from expressing that opinion to being able to assure the noble Lord that the money would be spent at the rate of £300,000 a year for ten years is a very great way. And, though I cannot promise him that he will get an answer to his question in the immediate future, I can assure him that he will get it before 3,000 years are past in any case, and that the matter is now being considered from its strategic and Imperial aspects. The noble Lord has asked for Papers. I really do not know what Papers I can lay which would satisfy him. He has had access, I have no doubt, in the past to most of the Papers in this connection. If there is any further information I can give him I should be delighted to do so, provided it is in the public interest.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, the Papers that I hoped would be selected for publication are the plans and estimates for converting Marsa Scirocco Bay into the Clapham Junction of the Air. I do not mind if in the Estimate the 10 s. 10 d. is left out. The argument of the noble Lord is, may I say, of a somewhat captious character. We are told that Malta offers to contribute towards this great scheme nothing but £100. The £100 may be compared to a sprat to catch a whale.
LORD THOMSON: Hear, hear.
LORD STRICKLAND: £100 is offered by the Government of Malta to obtain through the Admiralty a critical and, were it possible, a destructive report upon the plans and estimates prepared by the chief engineer of the Government of Malta. When the breakwater at Valetta was about to be built the same procedure was followed. The Admiralty accepted the offer of £100 and obtained the advice of Messrs. Goode, Sons and Mathews, then famed as breakwater specialists of high repute, and upon that report the interest of members of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament was awakened to the necessity of building the Valetta breakwater, which was invaluable during the Great War. It is a step on the hard road we have to tread to get rid of the difficulties—or, may be, the obstructions—on the road to achievement. But if the Maltese are told that they are contributing nothing but the plans and £100 the popular reply would be: "We are contributing the magnificent site known as Marsa Scirocco Bay." It is true Malta belongs to the Empire as much as it belongs to all or any of His Majesty's subjects, but nevertheless the fact that nature has endowed that Island with an invaluable site is held by the sons of the soil to be a gift which is most uncommon and unique in the whole Mediterranean, for the facilities it offers for being transformed into the Clapham Junction of the Air. Such a contribution is, in the opinion of the exponents of popular thought in Malta, a contribution of inestimable value. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA: STATUTORY COMMISSION'S REPORT.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM VISCOUNT BURNHAM had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether, having regard to Lord Irwin's statement at Simla on the 9th July, the Report of the Indian Statutory Commission will form the main subject of consideration and discussion at the Round-Table Conference which is to assemble here in November next; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, earlier in the afternoon we had an important if somewhat belated declaration from His Majesty's Government as to how the so-called Round-Table Conference was to be made up. But it was so limited that I regret to say it has not relieved me of the necessity of putting the Question that stands in my name. I may, however, be allowed to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the fact that they have not yielded to the threats of the Indian Nationalists as to putting representatives of the other Parties on the Conference. I read in the Indian News that Sir Chimanlal Setalvad had telegraphed to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Liberal Association in India slating that "if all Parties" were included "in the British representation" he and his friends might have to abstain. I am bound to say that this struck me as a very extraordinary thing, for the British representation surely is wholly and solely a matter for this Parliament to determine. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition for his reply to the Government and, both in regard to him and my noble friend Lord Reading, I shall await with interest what the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State has to say in reply and as to how far he accepts all the implications of their arguments.
It is almost unnecessary for me to tell you that I speak for myself alone and in no sense on behalf of the Statutory Commission of which I was a member. I have only tried, however rightly or wrongly, to do my duty as a Member of Parliament, speaking in a House which is still able to exercise freedom of debate without being fettered by the Executive. A week ago in another place the Prime Minister characterised this Question as "lacking in helpfulness." With all respect, I confess that I am unable to understand what he meant. The Prime Minister is a strong and an almost fanatical believer in the virtues of Parliamentary government. I am bound to say that it seems to me to be almost inconceivable that in other and more spacious days of Parliamentary annals a Conference fraught with such grave issues, not only to the peoples of India but to the British Empire, should be held without it having been the subject of inquiry and debate in both Houses

1003
of Parliament. If I am told that this has to be because the Prime Minister is afraid of the ebullience of a certain number of his own followers in another place, I say that is a matter for the House of Commons with which I have no concern. But it certainly ought not to affect the action of your Lordships' House which, surely, may be trusted to discuss Indian affairs with reticence and moderation.
In face of all these facts, I only wish to have a plain answer to the plain Question which I have set down upon the Paper. I want to rescue Indian affairs from a mystification which, in the long run, is bound to be as injurious to India as to British interests. That this mystification exists I have not the shadow of a doubt. I have here a whole sheaf of cuttings and interviews from the Indian Press with which I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships, but which I shall be very glad to show to any noble Lord who wishes to see them. It is not really with them a question of the Report of the Statutory Commission being condemned. It is a question of its being ignored altogether. As a matter of fact, it has been the subject of long and acrimonious debate in the Indian Legislative Assembly and inside and outside the leaders of the various political groups have been denouncing the Report of the Commission as reactionary and retrogressive and an insult to India, or, to use a favourite phrase of their own in India, it is as obscene, they say, as Miss Katherine Mayo's book. The Acting President of the Indian National Congress said that they were not going to pay the slightest attention to what the Commission recommended or did not recommend.
Your Lordships will realise that the Congress Party is the only organised party in India, and the conciliation of these Congress leaders is exactly the aim and purpose which is now being pursued by His Majesty's Government. Then Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, as an ambassador of peace who has been sent to carry on negotiations between the Government of India and Mr. Ghandi, expressed himself immediately in these terms. He said that the Report of the Commission was
"a piece of unparalleled political humbug and chicanery."
All these things show a confusion of mind and understanding which I hope very
1004
much will not be allowed to continue to the bitter end. It is not all on one side. I do not wish to bring the name of the Viceroy into this debate, but I am bound to say it is very difficult for any plain man to understand what he said on July 9 in the Address of which I have a report, and particularly the sentence in which he said:—
"From such a definition of the scope of the Conference it is clear that His Majesty's Government conceive of it not as a mere meeting for discussion and debate, but as a joint discussion of representatives of both countries on whose agreement precise proposals to Parliament may be founded."
How does that tally with the free and open Conference which, whatever it is, would not have a power of decision? I say that these things make it very difficult for the plain man here or in India to understand what we are about.
It has often been said that this Tripartite Conference was suggested in the beginning to the Prime Minister by the Statutory Commission. Your Lordships will have read in the first volume of our Report the correspondence that passed between Sir John Simon and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State know full well that this was not the proposal as it was originally made by the Commission, although I do not feel myself justified in going into details and telling your Lordships what the proposal actually was. As a matter of fact, I fully accept the letter of Sir John Simon as expressing the final views of the Commission. If your Lordships turn to it, I would ask you to note that Sir John Simon's letter was exclusively confined to adjusting the relations between British India and the Indian States, and that the further enlargement of the references to include the domestic affairs of British India and the political arrangements which might be necessary, only appears in the Prime Minister's reply of October 25 last year and not in the original letter. I say this because Sir John Simon, no doubt, fully interpreted the ultimate opinion of the Commission.
There has been a good deal of talk inside and outside, particularly outside, as to the expediency of the Round-Table Conference being free and unfettered in its methods and procedure. That is all very well but the Round-Table Conference, like all other conferences, must have an agenda paper for its proceedings,

1005
and for that agenda paper His Majesty's Government will be responsible. The agenda cannot spring, in all its bearings, by some process of mass incubation from the spontaneous energies of the seventy or eighty Indian gentlemen who are coming over here for the purpose. The Government itself must draw it up, and it is obvious that they must ask the Conference not to lay down general propositions, but to formulate concrete and practical proposals for renovating the constitutional arrangements of India. Generalisations, however high-minded and high-sounding, will not serve, and catchwords have been tried too often in India and have failed. It has been very truly said that catchwords not only catch but also imprison their victims, and that is a maxim which I should like the Government to ponder over. That is the reason why I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the Conference should found its discussions upon the Report of the Statutory Commission set up by Parliament and responsible to Parliament.
I have seen some mention of this Conference being engaged in treaty-making, but there is no question of treaty-making. The Indian Delegations of course are to be drawn from the various Indian groups and Parties, and a desperate effort has been made to bring them on to a common platform. That effort may be more successful than some of my noble friends think, and I am not one of those who believe that they are immediately going to break up into fragments. On the contrary. I think there will be sufficient agreement to scheme out some phrase or other and then to refer to the reports of the Nehru Committee and of the Indian Central Committee as embodying the principle and policy.
The first Question which I put to His Majesty's Government if they will answer it, but anyhow to suggest it to them, is, what sort of proportion is the British Delegation going to bear to the rest of the Conference? We know that they are coming over to the number of 60 or 80, and I have seen it suggested—of course I have no authority for this—that the British Delegation should be confined to two of the Government and one each for the Opposition Parties.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No; the Prime Minister said to-day in the other House three or four of each Party.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My noble friend corrects me, but that I hold to be in itself neither adequate nor complete. I venture to suggest that in no circumstances should the number of the British Delegation be less than twelve. It is quite true there would be no counting of heads. Possibly, in spite of what I have read out, no decisions will be arrived at, but there may he provisional decisions which will be brought up as an agreed solution of the Indian problem, and we always have to provide for the unforeseen. You have these huge Delegations coming from India, and surely Great Britain ought to have such a proportion of the representation as will enable us to meet the Indian representatives on a footing of equality, if not of numbers at least of dignity? I wonder what His Majesty's Government think the Conference would be like in order to cover all the diversities of Indian opinion; but at any rate it would be so large that a few more will make little difference either as to its nature or as to its proceedings. What is of the first importance is that we ought to be able to hold our own in the sight of the world. Out of the goodness of his heart the Viceroy is always expecting miracles to happen. But they never do happen. I am very sorry it should be so. I do not think they are going to happen now.
Finally—and then I shall simply put the Question as it stands—I may be allowed to say that there is only one line of policy in dealing with the affairs of the Indian Empire, and that I believe is the straight line. My only purpose in asking my Question is to clarify a situation that has become dangerously opaque and complicated. There is nothing that we should avoid so much in our Indian policy as the use of what Ruskin calls "masked words," words that have one meaning in one place and a different meaning in another; and it is just what we are doing now, and we shall suffer for it. I beg to put the Question that stands in my name.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I under stood that some of your Lordships were going to join in this discussion and thought I had better reply when I had heard what had been said. The noble Viscount has said a good many things not all of them connected with his Ques-

1007
tion on the Paper, and I am bound to say not all of them helpful. He stated early in his observations that he took the view that a Conference of this sort should not take place without a very full debate in both Houses of Parliament. I am happy to say that that view of his is not, I think, very widely shared, and the proper time, it would seem to me, for a debate in Parliament would be after the Conference has considered matters and come to such conclusions as it may come to, and when Parliament will have again fully to consider them and come to a final determination.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: When it is too late.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very much interested to hear the noble Viscount say "when it is too late," but I am not aware that the results of this Conference will bind Parliament any more than Parliament is bound by the conclusions of the Simon Report. It will be for Parliament to decide what is done after the Conference is over. Surely that is perfectly clear. The noble Viscount then made several suggestions. One of them was as to the number of persons who should be delegates in the Conference, and the proportion which they should bear to the Indian representatives. I am bound to say he did not give me any notice of the Question, and, for myself, it does not seem to me a very important one. Matters are not going to be decided, as he said, by the counting of heads or the counting of votes, but I take note of the fact that he thinks twelve is a proper number. His Majesty's Government will be very grateful to him for his advice, and will consider it in arriving at the numbers that they think proper, but I cannot say more about that because, first of all, as he very well knows, the matter is not settled, and, secondly, he gave me no notice of it.
Then he spoke about the British representation and the statement which I made earlier in the afternoon. That statement was a very carefully considered statement in very carefully considered words, and, I have nothing to add to it and nothing with which to qualify it. The statement must speak for itself. I cannot undertake to explain it any further. It seems to me to be perfectly
1008
clear. The noble Viscount went on to speak about the confusion of mind of many people, and the obscurity of the situation and of things that happened. I do not think that lie has helped to clarify the situation, as he suggested just now, himself. He spoke in what seemed to me a most extraordinary phrase of an ambassador of peace who had been "sent" to Mr. Ghandi. Sent to Mr. Ghandi: did the noble Viscount not read the letters which have passed between the Viceroy and the emissaries, and is it not perfectely clear they were in no sense of the word sent to Mr. Ghandi? I think the noble Viscount ought to be rather careful in these matters, and not misrepresent the action of the Viceroy.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: They were authorised to see Mr. Ghandi—specially authorised.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly. They could not see him without an authorisation, as he was in prison. That was the only authority required, but they were in no sense sent to Mr. Ghandi. They merely asked if they could see him, and whether they could try and ease the situation in India, a situation which, I think the noble Viscount would agree, would be all the better for being made as easy as possible. Then he made a reference, which was obscure to me, to a letter between Sir John Simon and the Prime Minister in the Report which, I understood him to suggest, did not represent the correct facts, or did not represent the letter that was really sent, or was first sent. I did not understand that reference.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I will explain. I do not wish the noble Earl to be under a misapprehension. I say it did not embody the original proposal of the Statutory Commission. It was an amended proposal.
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid the letter as printed in the Statutory Commission must speak for itself. The noble Viscount may have sources of private information.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I was there.
EARL RUSSELL: But I think the letter must speak for itself as it stands in the Report of the Statutory Commission. He then went on to ask about the agenda paper of the Conference. Well, I really do not quite know what the noble Vis-

1009
count is afraid of. It is perfectly obvious that the Conference must settle down to the discussion of something. As he says, you cannot have a body of sixty or eighty or a hundred people meeting just to discuss things in the air. There must be subjects, there must be questions before them. As a matter of fact we are, and we shall be until the time comes, engaged in settling the agenda paper and the form in which matters shall be discussed. If the noble Viscount wishes to render any assistance to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State on this matter, I have no doubt he will be glad ref any suggestion for the agenda paper or the shape it should take. But, unfortunately, I cannot give the noble Viscount the agenda paper to-day. It does not exist.
The other Question asked was the one on the Paper. It is—
"whether, having regard to Lord Irwin's statement ….the Report of the Indian Statutory Commission will Form the main subject of consideration and discussion at the Round-Table Conference."
Well, my Lords, how can I tell? Naturally, that Report, as was said earlier this afternoon by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, is a Report of very great authority and of an authority so much the greater that it is unanimous. It is the result of very careful inquiry. It obviously is entitled to the greatest possible respect. To suggest, as the noble Viscount seemed at one stage to suggest, or as was suggested I think earlier this afternoon, that anybody was anxious—no, I think he himself used the words that the Report was being ignored —to suggest that anybody would ignore—
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: In India.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes. The noble Viscount referred to a great many remarkable statements from people who have no connection with the Government, and extracts from the Press, and he appeared to think that those statements must necessarily be adopted by the Government. Why, I could not tell. I should imagine hundreds of statements could be obtained from the Indian or even the English Press in connection with this matter, but the Government have no responsibility for them. We could not ignore the Report, and it has never as far as I know been suggested
1010
that the Simon Commission Report could possibly be ignored. It is obviously a document of the first importance. The noble Viscount went on to ask whether it will be the main subject of discussion. Really, I scarcely understand what he means by that. It is obvious that none of the subjects in the Simon Commission's Report—and it deals, I think, practically with all possible subjects—could be discussed by anybody in the Conference without reference to and consideration of all that appears with regard to them in the Simon Report. If he means will the Delegates devote the principal part of their time to criticising and amending the Simon Report, or will they devote he principal part of their time to making some other suggestions of their own, neither I nor any other person can tell. The Conference will settle that for itself. We cannot be responsible for what the Delegates to the Conference are likely to say or what line they are likely to take.
As has been said, this is a Free Conference; that is to say, neither the Government Delegates nor any other Delegates to this Conference know what this Conference may do. They will be free. I understand that is the spirit in which the members of the Opposition Parties will join in the Conference. They will be anxious to hear what is said and then they will make up their minds at the end of the day when these things have been said. But if the noble Viscount means by these words—they are not quite the same, I think, as in the original form of the Question; the Question I think originally was "form the basis of discussion"
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Exactly the same.
EARL RUSSELL: It does not seem quite the same to me. If the noble Viscount means must the discussion be on the Simon Commission Report and nothing else, quite obviously the answer is in the negative. On the other hand, if it means is the Report to be put aside and never looked at, again the answer is in the negative, and I should have thought the question hardly requires answering. But I do not really understand the Question. Obviously the Conference must consider a Report which carries great weight. But the Report

1011
cannot bind the Conference and it is no more intended to bind the Conference than it is intended to bind Parliament. It is a Report which will be given proper weight at the proper time and the Conference will be entirely free to accept it or to reject it or to modify it. That surely is the only possible meaning of a Free Conference. I do not know what else the noble Viscount means and I think that these suggestions which have been made that the Simon Report is going to be ignored, or, on the other hand, that it should be treated as the Tables of Stone, are both very harmful suggestions quite inconsistent with the idea of an entirely Free Conference.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, a number of points have been raised this afternoon both by my noble friend Viscount, Burnham and by the noble Earl. Some of those points I think I really need not discuss because they have been covered by the statement made earlier this afternoon by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I only wish to mention very briefly two points. I entirely agree with my noble friend behind me, Viscount Burnham, that the representation of the different Parties—of course I am speaking now of the Opposition Parties—should be substantial. I am very glad indeed that the Government have decided—and I think, if I may say so, very wisely decided—that the different Parties should be represented. Otherwise, it would surely have been a very truncated and imperfect Conference, and very unrepresentative of the whole of British opinion. But I understand from the noble Earl that the Government have not yet arrived at a decision as to numbers and their minds on that point are to a certain extent open.
I would like to call the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that very severe labours and very heavy duties and responsibilities will be cast upon those members who represent the different Parties. This Conference is likely to take a very considerable time. To deal with these difficult constitutional matters, probably committees will be set up to deal with different aspects of the question, and it will be throwing I think an intolerable burden on the representatives of the different Parties unless you have such a substantial number that they may he able to relieve each other and dis-
1012
charge these special duties in s satisfactory way. I hope the Government will give full weight to what has been said on that point as to substantial representation. The Government, I understand, still have this question under consideration, and may I add that I hope the noble Earl will be able to make a statement on this subject before Parliament rises? We know how very unsatisfactory it is if these ragged ends are left and questions are left undecided, and we have not the opportunity of questioning him. I hope, therefore, we shall have a definite answer given to us on these matters while we are still able to discuss and debate them. Otherwise the matter will go over until October when Parliament meets again. Possibly there will be newspaper controversy and so on, and I think the noble Earl will realise that it is much better if we can have an answer before that date.
The only other point I wish to mention is that I am very anxious to reinforce, as strongly as I can, the suggestion already pressed upon the noble Earl to which, I think, he was not able to give an answer at the moment—that is the question of inviting the Chairman of the Royal Commission to take part in the Conference. It seems to me that it will be of immense value that you should have a representative on the Conference of the Royal Commission who is able—and nobody could do it better—to expound all the different points and all the constitutional aspects of every question, to explain to this large number of men assembled in the Conference why certain decisions were taken, or, what is perhaps more important in many cases, to say why certain decisions were not taken and why a certain course was adopted. I have seen—I am bound to say rather to my surprise—some of these criticisms and objections raised to the admission of Sir John Simon by eminent Liberal politicians and others in India. My noble friend mentioned Sir Chimanlal Setalvad. I do not understand what their objection is. Do they think that the forensic talents of Sir John Simon are so great that it will be impossible for any Indian politician to cope with them? A great many Indian lawyers will be coming over from India very well versed in all these matters and very capable of taking part in these debates.

1013
I should have thought it would be a great pleasure to them to meet with a man of Sir John Simon's calibre in these deliberations, and to have the pleasure of discussing these things with him.
What can be the objection to it? I can see none. After all, we want to get to the bottom of these problems. Surely, it seems absurd, when you have sent out a Commission which has reported unanimously, when you have appointed as Chairman of it a great lawyer, Sir John Simon, who spent two years over the business, that those people, the most competent to speak on the subject, are to be excluded from the Conference themselves. I hope that before Saturday the noble Earl and his colleagues will give consideration to this point. We all want the Conference to be as successful as it is possible to be, and nothing would contribute more to the careful elucidation of all these points than the presence, at the invitation of the Government, of Sir John Simon as Chairman of the Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): Does the noble Viscount press his Motion for Papers?
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: No, my Lords, I do not press it. I have had my answer such as it is.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TOWN PLANNING.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE asked His Majesty's Government when they propose to introduce legislation to amend the Town Planning Act, 1925. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to try to initiate a detailed discussion as to how the Town Planning Act might or might not be amended, but I heard it rumoured that the Government had a Bill in preparation and I would suggest that, if that were so, it might be for the convenience of those now engaged in preparing town planning schemes if the Government could inform them as far as possible or what their intentions are. I understand there are over five million acres of country now under some kind of town planning control. Most of these schemes are of fairly recent origin and it is obvious that a good deal has been learned
1014
about town planning since the last Act in 1925. From the experience I have had of a joint scheme in Sussex, we have learned that, if you have a large number of local authorities trying to operate a big joint scheme under the present Act, there is a tendency for the machinery to become very complicated indeed, and the complication seems to be rather unnecessary in view of the alterations in local government made last year. I cannot help feeling that this procedure could be simplified fairly easily and would result in greater expedition of these schemes on which we are engaged. That can be done by a comparatively small Amendment.
There is one other matter, the question of the name of the Bill. It has always seemed to me rather anomalous that, if you want to do something to preserve the countryside, you should have to try to raise popular enthusiasm for an Act apparently designed on the face of it to plan towns, in another place a Bill was introduced some time ago by a private member called fie Rural Amenities Bill and, though there may he some doubt in high judicial circles as to the precise meaning of the word "amenity," it conveys a meaning to a large number of people who want to do something to prevent the destruction of the countryside but who are at present absolutely unaware that any action can be taken at all under an Act of Parliament. There are, of course, many other things that could be said into which it is unnecessary to enter at present. Everybody has the utmost confidence in the Department and all I am asking is when they are going to have an opportunity to introduce an amending Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I gratefully thank the noble Lord for speaking on this subject and also for the suggestion he has made. Everyone knows that he, as a large landowner, has been definitely helping in the regional scheme to which he has referred and which, in fact, includes a large portion of his own property. So far as the Government are concerned, they are entirely in sympathy with the noble Viscount and thank him for bringing this matter forward and for what he has already done in regard to this regional scheme. One word upon a special topic. With regard to what, he said about the word "amenities," we dis-

1015
cussed it a good deal the other day and I find that, in both the French and English dictionaries, it is regarded as the largest possible word including all that is desired to be included in a scheme of this kind. It is curious that in both the definition is the same, "agreeableness," a word meaning everything that can be included with advantage and everything the noble Viscount would desire to include in laying out a rural amenities scheme.
The Government quite realise that the existing statutory provisions are inadequate for present requirements. It is recognised that there is a general demand for an extension of planning powers, not only of built areas of towns in order to secure that re-development, as and when it takes place, shall be carried out on a settled plan, but also in rural areas so that development may be brought under proper control and the amenities—I use that word again—of the countryside preserved and respected. Steps have already been taken to obtain the views of members of local authorities and of important organisations who are interested upon the difficult and complicated questions which, as the noble Lord knows, do arise and the Government will take the question of legislation on this subject into careful consideration when framing their programme for next Session.
I only wish to add two words to that. First of all we are grateful for any suggestion which in any form the noble
1016
Viscount himself will be prepared to convey to them, and, secondly, as he has indicated himself, as one of the questions involved is the position of some of the local authorities in amendments in order to make the scheme work more easily, we shall be glad to hear any suggestion he makes himself on those points. Of course, he would not expect me to give a pledge for next Session, but we hope and desire, in accordance with the opinion expressed by the noble Viscount, that this subject may be brought within our programme and that we may be able to deal with it effectively. It is perhaps a Bill that we might adequately consider in this House in the first instance. We ought to make every possible use of this House for technical legislation of this character, which is not political and which stands outside the ordinary atmosphere of politics. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the answer that I am able to make.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until to-morrow at half-past three o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.